m 


v^;;/.-,;^^:>;^ 


hM 


EVIDENCES 


GENUINENESS  OF  THE  GOSPELS. 


VOLUME    III. 


THU 


EVIDENCES 


GENUINENESS    OF   THE    GOSPELS. 


By   ANDREWS  ^XORTU.X. 


VOLUME  III. 


SECOND    EDITION. 


CAMBRIDGE: 

PUBLISHED    BY    GEORGE    NICHOLS. 

BOSTON: 
WM    CROSBY  AND  H.  P.  NICHOLS. 

1848. 


Entered  according  to  Act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  1848,  by  Andrews 
Norton,  in  the  (Klerk's  Office  of  tlie  District  ("oiirt  of  tlie  District  of 
Massacliusotts. 


CAMBRIDGE: 
METCALF  AND  COMPANY, 

PRINTERS   TO  THE  UNIVERSITY. 


CONTENTS 


PART  in. 

(continued.) 


ON  THE  EVIDENCE    FOR    THE    GENUINENESS  OF  TIIK 
GOSPELS  AFFORDED  BY  THE  EARLY  HERETICS  .        I 

CHAPTER  VII. 

On  the   System   of   the   Gnostics,    as   intended   for  a 
Solution  of  the  Existence  of  Evil  in  the  World  .       3 

Section  I. 

On  their  Opinion,  that  the   World  was  formed  by  an 
inferior  Creator  or  Creators  .....      3 

The  system  of  the  Gnostics,  an  attempt  to  solve  the  prob- 
lem of  the  existence  of  evil,  pp.  3-5.  —  The  solution 
given  by  the  principal  sects  twofold,  namely,  that  the 
Creator  is  an  imperfect  being,  and  that  evil  is  inherent 
in  matter,  p.  5.  —  Opinions  respecting  the  Creator,  pp. 
5-11. — These  opinions  to  be  vievped  in  connection 
with  the  doctrines  of  the  age,  and  the  other  causes  that 
led  to  their  adoption,  pp.  11,  12.  —  State  of  the  popular 
and  of  the  philosophical  religion  among  the  ancient 
Heathens,  pp.  12  -  27.  —  The  philosophers  believed  that 


VI  CONTENTS. 

the  world  was  governed  by  inferior  gods,  pp.  16,  17. — 
Opinions  of  Plato  on  this  subject,  pp.  17-25.  —  Anal- 
ogy of  the  doctrines  of  the  Gnostics  to  those  of  the 
heathen  philosophers,  pp.  25-27. — Analogy  to  those 
of  Philo,  pp.  27,  28.  —  To  those  of  the  Jewish  Rabbis 
and  of  Origen,  who  believed  the  world  to  be  governed 
by  angels,  pp.  28-32.  —  To  the  opinion  of  the  early 
Christians,  that  the  heathen  gods  were  evil  demons,  and 
the  pagan  world  the  realm  of  Satan,  pp.  32,  33.  —  To 
the  doctrine  generally  of  the  rule  of  Satan  over  the 
world,  pp.  33-39.  —  History  of  this  doctrine,  pp.  34- 

39.  —  Analogy  remarked  by  Origen  between  the  Creator 
of  the  Gnostics  and  the  Logos  of  catholic  Christians,  pp. 

40,  41.  —  The  Gnostics  led  to  their  doctrine  of  an  Un- 
known God,  not  the  Creator,  by  the  preceding  state  of 
religious  opinion  in  the  world,  pp.  41,  42. — General 
tendency  to  the  belief  of  some  being  or  beings  inter- 
posed between  God  and  his  creatures  of  this  world,  pp. 
42  -44.  —  Illustrated  by  Cudworth's  doctrine  of  Plastic 
Nature,  pp.  42-44.  —  Reasoning  of  the  fathers  against 
the  Gnostic  doctrine  of  the  Creator,  pp.  45,  46.  —  Ar- 
guments of  the  Gnostics  in  its  support,  pp.  46-48. 

Section  II. 

On  the  Opinions  of  the  Gnostics  concerning  Evil,  as 
inherent  in  Matter  .         .        .         .         .         .49 

That  evil  is  inherent  in  matter  was  a  common  belief  long 
before  the  time  of  the  Gnostics,  p.  49.  —  It  was  the 
doctrine  of  Plato,  pp.  50-52.  —  Was  held  by  some 
Christians  not  Gnostics,  pp.  52,  53.  —  Connected  with 
the  common  notion  of  the  evil  nature  of  the  body,  p.  53. 
—  The  body  considered  as  evil  by  Plato,  pp.  53,  54. — 
By  Philo,  p.  55.  — By  St.  Paul,  pp.  55,  56.  —  Remarks 
on  this  opinion,  pp.  66-58.  —  This  opinion  did  not  find 
much  favor  with  the  early  fathers,  p.  58.  —  Influences 
of  it  upon  the  practice  and  doctrines  of  the  Gnostics, 


CONTENTS.  Vll 

pp.  58,  59.  —  Opinions  of  the  Gnostics  relating  to  the 
Devil,  pp.  59-65.  —  Error  of  Irenaeus  concerning  them, 
pp.  60-63.  —  The  Gnostics  regarded  the  principle  of 
evil  in  the  universe  as  inherent  in  matter,  not  as  a  fallen 
angel,  pp.  61-65.  —  Concluding  remarks;  views  of 
some  of  the  catholic  Christians  respecting  the  origin  of 
evil,  pp.  65,  66. 

CHAPTER  Vlll. 

On    the    peculiar    Speculations    of     the    Theosophic 
Gnostics        .........     67 

Section  I. 

Introductory  Remarks  on  the   Character  of  Ancient 
Philosophy     ........    67 

Reasons  for  introducing  these  remarks,  pp.  67,  G8.  — Diffi- 
culties attending  the  study  of  ancient  philosophy  from 
a  want  of  correspondence  between  the  ideas  of  the  an- 
cients and  our  own,  pp.  68-73. — Reasoning  upon  the 
higher  subjects  of  thought  a  less  serious  thing  with  the 
ancient  heathen  philosophers  than  it  is  at  the  present 
day,  pp.  73-76. — The  art  of  reasoning  very  imper- 
fectly understood  by  the  ancients,  p.  76.  —  They  fell 
into  the  error  of  founding  hypotheses  on  preconcep- 
tions and  not  on  facts,  pp.  76,  77.  —  Notice  of  similar 
hypotheses  in  modern  times,  p.  78.  —  Remarks  on  the 
general  character  of  such  hypotheses,  pp.  78-81. — 
The  illogical  reasoning  of  the  ancient  philosophers 
caused  much  inconsistency  in  their  speculations,  pp. 
81,82.  —  Truth  in  respect  to  the  higher  objects  of 
thought  of  less  importance  in  ancient  times  than  in  our 
own,  pp.  82  -  84.  —  The  loose  reasoning  of  the  ancients 
proceeded  from  a  want  of  clear  conceptions ;  conse- 
quently the  meaning  of  the  language  employed  in  it 
was  indeterminate,  p.  84.  —  The  same  cause  producing 


VIU  CONTENTS. 

the  same  result  at  the  present  day,  pp.  85,  86.  —  Ob- 
scurity affected  by  ancient  philosophers,  pp.  86-91. — 
The  preceding  remarks  illustrated  by  Plato's  account  of 
the  formation  of  the  Soul  of  the  Universe  in  his  Timaeus, 
pp.  91  -  106.  —  Character  of  Plato,  pp.  106,  107,  note  ; 
109-113.  —  His  speculations  compared  with  those  of 
the  Gnostics,  pp.  107-109.  —  Reasons  why  his  writings 
had  great  influence  on  the  minds  of  the  catholic  Chris- 
tians, pp.  110-113. — The  speculations  of  the  theo- 
sophic  Gnostics  connected  with  the  Platonic  philoso- 
phy ;  but  the  doctrine  of  emanation,  on  which  they  are 
essentially  founded,  probably  not  introduced  into  this 
philosophy  till  long  after  the  time  of  Plato,  pp.  113, 
114. 

SECTION  II. 

On  the  Speculations  of  the  Theosophic  Gnostics  con- 
cerning the  Development  of  the  Deity,  and  the  Spir- 
itual World 115 

Of  these  speculations  the  theory  of  the  Ptolemseo-Valen- 
tinians  affords  the  best  type,  p.  115.  —  This  theory 
stated  and  illustrated,  pp.  116-133.  —  Considerations 
respecting  it,  pp.  133-  151.  —  The  derivative  ^ons  were 
formed  of  the  substance  of  the  Deity,  pp.  133  -  135.  — 
Analogy  of  this  doctrine  to  other  prevalent  opinions,  pp. 
135-137.  —  How  the  derivative  ^ons  were  regarded 
under  their  character  as  persons,  pp.  137-141. — Re- 
marks of  Ir^nseus  and  Tertullian  concerning  these 
tEohs,  considered  as  hypostatized  attributes  or  Ideas  of 
the  Divine  Mind,  pp.  142-144.  —  The  conception  of 
hypostatized  attributes  and  Ideas  of  the  Divine  Mind 
has  prevailed  very  extensively,  pp.  144,  145.  —  These 
beings  considered  as  capable  of  erring,  of  sinning,  and 
of  suffering,  pp.  145,  146.  —  Notions  of  the  Gnostics 
concerning  the  aberrations  and  sufferings  of  the  ^on 
Wisduin,  p.  146.  —  Of  some  of  the  fathers  concerning 


CONTENTS.  IX 

the  sufferings  of  the  Logos,  pp.  146  -  148.  —  Scheme  of 
the  Valentinians  a  sort  of  allegory,  transformed  into  a 
system  of  doctrines,  pp.  148-150. —  Systems  essen- 
tially similar  held  by  the  other  theosophic  Gnostics,  pp. 
150,  151.  —  Mention  of  the  Basilidians,  p.  151.  —  Ac- 
count of  the  Marcosians,  pp.  152-  158. 

SECTION  III. 

Om  the   Speculations  of  the  Theosophic  Gnostics  con- 
cerning the  Formation  of  the  Visible  Ihiiverse        .  159 

An  account  given  of  the  scheme  of  Ptolemy  as  the  best 
example  of  these  speculations,  pp.  159-  168. 

CHAPTER  IX. 

On  the  Opinions  of  the  Gnostics  concerning  the  Per- 
son OF  Christ       ........  169 

The  Gnostics  generally  believed  that  Christ  had  not  a 
proper  body  of  flesh  and  blood,  p.  169.  — The  Marcion- 
ites  denied  his  nativity,  and  believed  his  apparent  body 
to  be  a  mere  phantom,  pp.  169,  170.  —  The  theosophic 
Gnostics  generally  appear  to  have  believed  him  to  pos- 
sess a  real  body,  pp.  170,  171.  —  Complex  scheme, 
probably  adopted  by  many  of  them,  respecting  the  con- 
stitution of  the  Saviour,  pp.  171,  172.  —  The  Marcion- 
ites  did  not  doubt  the  truth  of  the  accounts  of  the  mira- 
cles of  Christ,  or  of  his  death  and  resurrection,  pp.  172 
-176.  —  Passage  of  Tertullian  quoted  and  explained, 
pp.  175  -  178,  note.  —  Extraordinary  tradition  preserved 
by  Origen,  that  Christ  assumed  different  forms  at  differ- 
ent times,  pp.  177-179.  —  Remarks  on  this  tradition, 
and  on  the  opinion  of  the  Marcionites,  pp.  179  -  181. 

VOL.    III.  b 


CONTENTS. 


CHAPTER  X. 


On  the  Opinions  of  the  Gnostics    respecting   the   De- 
sign OF  Christianity 182 

On  this  subject  the  Gnostics  did  not  differ  essentially 
from  the  catholic  Christians,  p.  182.  —  Remarks  on  the 
division  of  men  into  three  classes,  made  by  the  theo- 
sophic  Gnostics,  and  their  belief  that  the  "  spiritual  " 
were  elect  by  nature,  pp.  182,  183. — Opinions  of  the 
Marcionites,  pp.  183,  184.  —  Neither  the  Gnostics  nor 
the  early  catholic  Christians  believed  the  modern  doc- 
trine of  the  Atonement,  pp.  184,  185.  —  Gnokics  wide- 
ly different  from  those  religionists  of  modern  times, 
who,  through  reliance  on  their  spiritual  intuitions,  reject 
the  belief  of  Revelation,  pp.  185,  186. 


CHAPTER  XI. 

On    the    Manner   in   which   the    Gnostics    reconciled 
their  Doctrines  with  Christianity    ....  187 

Discrepance  between  the  doctrines  of  the  Gnostics  and 
the  teaching  of  Christ  such  as  may  lead  one  at  first 
view  to  suspect  that  they  held  the  Gospels  in  no  es- 
teem, p.  187.  —  But  a  similar  discrepance  has  existed 
between  the  doctrines  of  a  great  majority  of  professed 
Christians  and  the  teaching  of  Christ,  pp.  187-190.  — 
Prevalence  of  religious  error,  pp.  190,  191. — Faith,  in 
consequence,  disconnected  from  reason,  and  founded  on 
a  pretended  intuitive  discernment  of  spiritual  things, 
pp.  191,  192.  —  Prevalent  errors  respecting  the  charac- 
ter and  interpretation  of  the  Scriptures,  pp.  192-196. 
—  Means  by  which  the  Gnostics,  in  particular,  recon- 
ciled their  doctrines  with  their  Christian  faith,  pp. 
196-215.  —  The  allegorical  and  other  false  modes  of 


CONTENTS.  XI 

interpretation  used  by  the  theosophic  Gnostics,  pp. 
190-199.  —  They  appealed  to  a  secret  oral  tradition, 
by  which  they  contended  that  the  esoteric  doctrines  of 
Christianity  had  been  preserved,  pp.  199,200. — The 
notion  of  such  a  tradition  equally  maintained  by  Clem- 
ent of  Alexandria,  pp.  200-205.  —  To  be  distin- 
guished from  the  public  traditionary  knowledge  of  Chris- 
tianity asserted  by  other  fathers,  pp.  202,  203 ;  204, 
205,  note.  —  And  also  from  the  fundamental  doctrine  of 
the  Roman  Catholic  Church  concerning  the  authority  of 
Tradition,  pp.  204,  205,  note.  —  The  notion  of  the 
Gnostics  concerning  the  Apostles  and  Christ,  that  they 
accommodated  their  doctrine  to  the  capacity  of  their 
hearers,  not  openly  teaching  the  more  mysterious  truths 
of  religion,  pp.  205,  206.  —  Another  opinion,  that  the 
Apostles  generally,  through  the  influence  of  their  Jew- 
ish prejudices,  were  led  into  errors  and  did  not  discern 
all  the  truth,  St.  Paul,  however,  being  regarded  as  much 
the  most  enlightened  of  their  number,  pp.  206-208. 
—  Opinion,  that  the  teachings  of  Christ  were  not  all  of 
equal  authority,  pp.  208-210.  —  Remarks  on  the  no- 
tions of  the  Gnostics  respecting  the  Apostles,  pp.  210, 
211. — On  their  pretence  to  infallible  knowledge,  pp. 
211-214.  —  Peculiar  case  of  the  Marcionites  in  appeal- 
ing only  to  their  mutilated  copies  of  the  Gospel  of  Luke 
and  often  of  the  Epistles  of  St.  Paul,  pp.  214,  215.  — 
Apparent  from  what  precedes,  that  the  Gnostics  could 
have  appealed  to  no  history  of  Christ  at  variance  with 
the  four  Gospels,  pp.  215-217.  —  But  the  subject 
admits  of  further  explanation,  p.  217. 


Xll  CONTENTS. 


CHAPTER  XII. 

On  the  Question,  whether  the  Gnostics  opposed  to 
THE  FOUR  Gospels  any  other  written  Histories  or 
History  of  Christ's  Ministry 218 

This  question  leads  to  a  general  review  of  those  books 
which  have  been  called  apocryphal  gospels,  pp.  218, 
219.  —  Considerations  to  be  attended  to  in  this  exam- 
ination, pp.  220-226.  — Had  the  Gnostics  opposed  any 
other  history  of  Christ  to  the  four  Gospels,  we  should 
have  had  full  information  of  the  fact,  pp.  221,  222. — 
But  no  evidence  of  such  a  fact  appears  in  Irenasus  or 
Tertullian,  the  two  principal  writers  against  the  Gnos- 
tics, pp.  222,  223.  —  It  is  not  probable  that  the  ancient 
books  which  may  be  properly  called  apocryphal  gospels 
were  histories  of  Christ's  ministry,  but  books  giving 
the  views  of  the  writer  concerning  the  doctrines  of 
Christianity,  pp.  223-226.  —  No  apocryphal  gospel 
mentioned  by  Tertullian,  pp.  226,  227.  — Irenaeus  once 
speaks  of  a  book  called  The  True  Gospel  as  in  use 
among  the  Valentinians,  pp.  227,  228.  —  If  there  were 
such  a  book,  it  was  not  an  historical  gospel,  p.  229.  — 
Its  existence  doubtful,  and,  if  such  a  book  existed,  it 
was  a  work  of  no  notoriety,  and  one  to  which  the  Val- 
entinians, in  general,  attached  no  importance,  pp.  229- 
231.  —  Irenaeus  mentions  one  other  supposed  book,  The 
Gospel  of  Judas,  oi  which  he  ascribes  the  use  to  a  sect 
called  Cainites  ;  but  the  existence  of  the  sect  or  of  the 
book  is  altogether  improbable,  pp.  231-234.  —  This  is 
all  the  information  concerning  apocryphal  gospels  to  be 
derived  from  the  two  principal  writers  against  the 
Gnostics,  pp.  234,  235.  —  Excepting  the  story  of  Ire- 
naeus about  The  True  Gospel,  there  is  no  charge  by  any 
writer  against  the  Valentinians,  or  the  Marcionites,  of 
using   apocryphal  gospels,  unless  Marcion's  mutilated 


CONTENTS.  XIU 

copy  of  Luke  be  so  called,  p.  235.  — Nor  against  the 
Basilidians,  before  the  Author  of  the  Homilies  on 
Luke,  pp.  235,  236.  —  He,  and  others  subsequently, 
speak  of  a  Gospel  of  Basilides,  pp.  236,  237.  —  No 
probability  that  such  a  book  existed,  p.  237.  —  The 
notion  of  its  existence  probably  had  its  origin  in  the 
fact,  that  Basilides  wrote  a  Commentary  on  the  four 
Gospels,  pp.  237-239.  —  Remarks  on  the  preceding 
facts,  pp.  239,  240.  —  Clement  of  Alexandria  mentions 
The  Gospel  according  to  the  Egyptians,  pp.  240,  241.  — 
Account  of  this  book,  pp.  241-248.  —  No  other  apocry- 
phal gospel  mentioned  by  Clement,  unless  the  Gospel 
of  the  Hebrews  be  so  named,  pp.  248-250.  —  But  he 
speaks  of  a  book  called  The  Traditions,  which  has 
been  imagined  to  be  the  same  with  The  Gospel  accord- 
ing to  Matthias,  p.  250.  —  Account  of  this  book,  pp. 
250-254. — Of  the  title  of  The  Gospel  according  to 
Matthias,  p.  254.  —  The  Gospel  of  Peter,  p.  255.  — 
Account  of  this  book,  pp.  255-260.  —  Origen  in  his  un- 
disputed works  mentions  no  other  apocryphal  book  en- 
titled a  gospel,  besides  this,  p.  260.  —  Notices  of  sup- 
posed apocryphal  gospels  by  the  Author  of  the  Homilies 
on  Luke  and  by  Eusebius,  p.  261.  —  General  remarks 
on  the  apocryphal  gospels,  pp.  261-267.  —  Not  com- 
monly written  with  a  fraudulent  design,  pp.  262-264. 
—  Very  little  notice  taken  of  them  in  ancient  times, 
pp.  264-267.  —  Late  apocryphal  gospels,  p.  267. — 
The  Protevangelion  of  James,  and  other  gospels  of  the 
Nativity,  so  called,  pp.  267-273.  —  Fables  respecting 
Joseph  and  Mary,  pp.  269-273.  —  The  gospels  of  the 
Infancy,  so  called,  pp.  273 -282.  —  Fables  respecting 
the  infancy  and  childhood  of  our  Lord,  pp.  273-281. — 
Account  of  The  Gospel  of  Nicodemus,  so  called,  pp. 
282-287,  note.  —  Remarks  on  the  fables  concerning 
our  Lord  and  concerning  Mary,  pp.  283 -290.  —  Con- 
clusion from  the  preceding  statements,  pp.  290,  291.  — 
Subject  resumed,  p.  291.  —  Certain  gospels,  imagined 


XIV  CONTENTS. 

to  have  been  used  by  Tatian  in  forming  his  Dialessaron, 
pp.  292-295.  —  Pretended  Gospel  of  Cerinthus,  pp. 
295-298. — Concluding  remarks.  Mistakes  that  have 
been  committed  concerning  apocryphal  gospels,  pp. 
298-302. 

CHAPTER  XIII. 

Concluding  Statement  of  the  Evidence  for  the  Gen- 
uineness OF  the  Gospels  afforded  by  the  Gnostics  .  303 

General  view,  303.  —  Evidence  particularly  afforded  by 
the  Marcionites,  pp.  303-305.  —  Evidence  particularly 
afforded  by  the  theosophic  Gnostics,  pp.  305-310. — 
Striking  proof  from  Tertullian  of  the  abundant  use  of 
the  Gospels  made  by  the  Gnostics,  pp.  310-316. — No 
history  of  Christ's  ministry  at  variance  with  the  four 
Gospels  known  by  the  early  Christians,  pp.  316-317.  — 
Remarks  on  the  supposition,  that  the  Gnostics  appealed 
to  the  Gospels  only  by  way  of  reasoning  ad  hominem 
with  the  catholic  Christians,  pp.  318-323.  —  Conclud- 
ing remarks,  pp.  323-336. 


ADDITIONAL  NOTES. 

NOTE  A. 

On  the  Distinction  made  by  the  Ancients  between 
Things  Intelligible  and  Things  Sensible;  on 
THE  Use  of  the  Terms  Spiritual  and  Material 
AS  applied  to  their  Speculations  ;  and  on  the 
Nature  of  Matter 

NOTE  B. 

On  Basilides  and  the  Basilidians 


CONTENTS.  XV 

NOTE  C. 

On  the  Gospel  of  Marcion xlvi 

NOTE  D. 
On  the  Use  of  the  Words  Geos  and  Deus        .        .        Ixi 


Corrections  and  Remarks       ....  Ixxviii 


PART   III. 

(continued.) 


ON    THE    EVIDENCE    FOR    THE    GENUINENESS   OF    THE    GOSPELS 
AFFORDED    BY    THE    EARLY    HERETICS. 


PART  III. 


CHAPTER  VII. 

ON    THE    SYSTEM     OF     THE    GNOSTICS,     AS     INTENDED     FOR     A 
SOLUTION    OF    THE    EXISTENCE    OF    EVIL    IN    THE    WORLD. 


Section  I. 

On  their  Opinion,  that  the  World  was  formed  by  an 
inferior  Creator  or  Creators. 

The  view  which  we  are  now  about  to  take 
of  Gnosticism  will  lead  us  to  consider  it  as  a 
complicated,  but  inartificial,  and  wholly  unsatis- 
factory attempt  to  solve  the  problem  of  the 
existence  of  evil  in  the  creation.  "  The  same 
subjects,"  says  TertuUian,  "  are  agitated  by  the 
heretics  and  by  the  philosophers.  They  are  en- 
tangled in  the  same  discussions :  Whence  is 
evil,  and  why  does  it  exist  ?  and  Whence  is  man, 
and  how  was  he  formed  ?  and  the  allied  ques- 
tion of  Valentinus,  Whence  is   God  ?  "  *     By 

*  De  Prsescript.  Haeretic.  c.  7.  p.  204. 


4  EVIDENCES  OF  THE 

God,  as  here  used  in  reference  to  the  inquiry 
of  Valentinus,  is  to  be  understood,  not  the  Su- 
preme Being,  but  the  Maker  of  the  World.  In 
another  passage,  speaking  of  Marcion,  he  de- 
scribes him  as  "  diseased  about  the  question, 
Whence  is  evil  ?  as  many,"  he  adds,  "  especially 
the  heretics,  now  are."  He  represents  him  as 
perverting  the  words  of  Christ,  "  A  good  tree 
produces  good  fruit,  and  a  bad  tree  produces 
bad  fruit "  ;  interpreting  the  former  clause  as 
, referring  to  the  Supreme  Being,  and  the  latter 
to  the  Maker  of  the  World.  "  Having  his  per- 
ceptions blunted  by  the  very  extravagance  of 
his  curiosity,  finding  the  declaration  of  the 
Creator,  '  I  create  evil,'  *  and  having  already 
presumed  him  to  be  the  author  of  evil  on  the 
ground  of  those  arguments  which  convince  the 
ill-disposed,  he  has  taught,  in  conformity  to  this, 
that  the  Creator  is  signified  by  the  bad  tree 
bearing  bad  fruit,  that  is  to  say,  the  evils  which 
exist ;  and  has  presumed  that  there  must  be 
another  God,  answering  to  the  good  tree  bear- 
ing good  fruit."  t 

By  the  introduction   of  Christianity   a   new 


*  Isaiah  xlv.  7. 

t  Advers.  Marcion.  Lib.  I.  c.  2.  p.  366.     Conf.  Origen.  De 
Principiis,  Lib.  II.  c.  5.  §  4.  0pp.  I.  88. 


GENUINENESS   OF  THE  GOSPELS.  5 

impulse  was  given  to  the  minds  of  men,  Hea- 
thens as  well  as  Christians,  to  investigate  the 
origin  of  evil.  The  question.  Whence  is  evil  ? 
is  called  by  Eusebius  "  that  famous  subject  of 
discussion  among  the  heretics  "  ;  *  but  the  dis- 
cussions concerning  it  were  far  from  being  con- 
fined to  them. 

Of  this  problem  the  solution  peculiar  to  the 
Gnostics  was  twofold.  In  its  most  general 
form,  as  held  by  the  principal  sects,  especially 
by  the  Valentinians  and  the  Marcionites,  it  may 
be  thus  stated.  They  taught,  on  the  one  hand, 
that  the  Creator  was  an  inferior  and  imperfect 
being,  and,  on  the  other,  that  evil  was  inherent 
in  matter.  Imperfection  and  evil,  therefore, 
were  the  necessary  result  of  the  defects  both 
of  the  workman  and  of  the  material. 

We  will  first  attend  to  their  opinions  respect- 
ing the  Creator.  By  the  theosophic  Gnostics 
he  was  regarded,  not  as  self-existent,  but  as 
deriving  his  being  mediately  from  God.  The 
Marcionites,  perhaps,  held  the  same  opinion  ; 
but  we  have  no  direct  evidence  that  such  was 
the  fact.  The  Valentinians  represented  him  as 
having  been  ignorant  of  the   existence  of  the 


*  Hist.  Eccles.  Lib.  V.  c.  27. 


6  EVIDENCES   OF  THE 

Supreme  Being  before  it  was  discovered  to  him 
by  the  coming  of  Christ,  and  as  having  sup- 
posed himself  to  be  the  only  God.*  It  is 
not  improbable  that  the  Marcionites  held  a 
similar  doctrine.  The  Valentinians  believed, 
that,  in  the  formation  of  beings,  he  wrought, 
though  unconsciously,  by  suggestions  from  the 
Mon,  called  Saviour  or  Jesus ;  and  to  this 
Mon  they  ascribed  such  agency,  that  they  re- 
garded him  as  having,  in  a  certain  sense,  given 
form  to  all  things  without  the  Pleroma.f  The 
Marcionites  ascribed  to  the  Creator  no  similar 
direction  from  a  higher  power.  By  the  Valen- 
tinians he  was  regarded  as  benevolent,  and  as 
rejoicing  in  the  interposition  of  the  Supreme 
Being  by  Christ,  through  which  both  himself 
and  his  creatures  were  to  be  exalted  and 
blessed.  They  believed  him  to  be  still  con- 
tinued in  the  government  of  the  world,  and 
intrusted  with  a  certain  care  of  the  Church. f 
They  spoke  of  him  as  the  God  and  Father  of 
what  is  without  the  Pleroma,  as  an  angel  like 


*  Irenasus,  Cont.  Haeres.  Lib.  I.  c.  5.  §  4.  p.  25.  c.  7.  §  4.  p.  34  ; 
et  alibi. 

t  Irenaeus,  Lib.  L  c.  4.  §  5.  p.  22.  c.  5.  §  1.  pp.  23,  24.  c.  8. 
§  5.  p.  42. 

X  Irenaeus,  Lib.  I.  c.  7.  §  4.  pp.  34,  35.  c.  8.  ^  4.  pp.  39,  40. 
TertuUian.  Advers.  Valentinianos,  c.  28.  p.  260. 


GENUINENESS   OF  THE  GOSPELS.  7 

to  the  Supreme  God,  and  as  formed  in  the 
image  of  the  "  Only  Son,"  that  is,  of  the  first 
manifestation  of  the  Deity.*^  The  Basilidians 
appear  to  have  held  similar  honorable  concep- 
tions of  the  Creator.f  But  the  Marcionites, 
though  they  allowed  him  to  be  just, J  repre- 
sented him  as  a  being  to  be  feared  rather  than 
to  be  loved.  They  insisted  more  strongly  than 
the  theosophic  Gnostics  on  the  distinction,  that 
he  was  "just,"  but  not  "  good  " ;  by  which 
they  meant,  that  he  directly  inflicted  no  evils 
on  men  except  as  penalties  for  sin,  and  con- 
ferred blessings  as  rewards  for  the  performance 
of  duty ;  but  wanted  the  unmingled  benevo- 
lence of  the  Supreme  Being.  Him  they  called 
good  and  not  just,  meaning,  by  denying  him 
the  latter  attribute,  that  he  inflicted  no  punish- 
ments. They  proceeded  still  further  in  de- 
grading the  character  of  the  Creator.  They 
applied  to  him,  as  we  have  before  seen,  the 
words,  "  A  bad  tree  produces  bad  fruit."  From 
various  passages  of  the  Old  Testament,  correctly 


*  Irenaeus,  Lib.  I.  c.  5.  §§  1,  2.  pp.  23,  24.  Lib.  IIL  c.  12. 
§  12.  p.  198.  Clement.  Al.  Stromat.  IV.  ^  13.  p.  603.  Ptolemaei 
Epist.  ad  Floram,  p.  361. 

f  Clement.  Al.  Stromat.  II.  §  8.  p.  449. 

X  "  Creator quem  et  Marcion  justum  facit."     Tertul- 

lian.  Advers.  Marcion.  Lib.  IV.  c.  33.  p.  449. 


8  EVIDENCES  OF  THE 

or  incorrectly  understood,  they  derived  very 
unfavorable  conceptions  of  him.*  They  be- 
lieved that  the  coming  of  Christ  was  intended 


*  In  the  Dialogue  de  Redd  Fide  (Sect.  II.  p.  826),  the  speak- 
er, representing  a  Marcionite,  is  made  to  say,  that  "  the  Good  God 
came  through  compassion  for  the  soul  of  man,  which  he  saw  was 
under  condemnation  [that  is,  under  condemnation  from  the  Crea- 
tor on  account  of  sin]  ;  and  that  the  Creator  plotted  against  him, 
and  determined  to  crucify  him,  because  he  perceived  that  he  was 
abrogating  his  laws."  But  the  authority  of  the  author  of  this 
Dialogue  is  not  sufficient  to  establish  the  fact,  that  this  doctrine 
was  held  by  the  earlier  Marcionites  concerning  the  Creator.  Per- 
haps he  may  have  had  a  ground  for  his  representation  in  the  lan- 
guage of  some  individual  or  individuals  among  those  who  called 
themselves  Marcionites  in  the  fourth  century.  Had  the  elder 
Marcionites  held  such  a  doctrine,  Tertullian  would  have  stated  it 
expressly,  and  remarked  upon  it  vehemently  and  at  length  ;  nor 
would  the  other  early  fathers,  none  of  whom  mentions  it,  have 
left  us  in  any  doubt  on  the  subject.  The  representation  contained 
in  the  Dialogue  has,  however,  been  repeated  by  some  modern 
writers,  as  by  Beausobre  (Hist,  du  Manich6isme,  II.  120),  Mos- 
heim  (Commentarii  de  Rebus  Christ,  p.  407),  and  Walch  (Hist, 
der  Ketzereien,  I.  511).  —  Mosheim  (Ibid.  p.  384)  ascribes  the 
same  doctrine  to  the  Yalentinians,  which  is  a  greater  error ;  for 
his  statement  is  not  only  unsupported  by  any  authority,  but  is  di- 
rectly contradictory  to  the  testimony  of  the  ancients,  as  it  has 
been  already  alleged,  p.  6. 

A  sentence  of  Tertullian  (Advers.  Marcion.  Lib.  III.  c.  23. 
p.  411)  has  been  referred  to,  as  countenancing  what  is  said  by 
the  author  of  the  Dialogue.  But  it  falls  far  short  of  asserting 
what  he  has  stated.  Had  Marcion  directly  charged  the  Creator 
with  procuring  the  destruction  of  Christ,  Tertullian,  as  I  have 
said,  would  not  have  left  us  to  infer  the  fact  from  an  indirect  allu- 
sion to  it  in  a  single  sentence. 


GENUINENESS   OF  THE  GOSPELS.  9 

for  the  deliverance  of  the  spiritually-minded 
from  his  reign,  that  they  might  be  finally  raised 
to  a  far  higher  state  of  glory  than  he  could 
confer.  But  over  all  others  they  conceived  that 
he  still  retained  his  authority,  conferring  rewards 
and  punishments  which  extended  to  the  future 
life.  They  regarded  him  as  still  the  governor 
of  this  world  (that  is,  of  the  material  universe), 
and  the  peculiar  god  of  the  Jews,  for  whose 
redemption  he  was  yet  about  to  send  his  prom- 
ised Messiah.* 

Other  opinions,  still  more  derogatory  to  the 
Creator  than  those  of  the  Marcionites,  are  re- 
ported to  have  been  held  by  certain  sects,  he- 
retical or  pseudo-Christian.  Those  ascribed  to 
the  Ophians,  the  most  remarkable  among  those 
sects,  have  been  already  mentioned.  Ptolemy, 
in  the  beginning  of  his  Letter  to  Flora,  says, 
that  "  some  affirm  that  the  Law  of  Moses  was 
ordained  by  the  opposing  and  destroying  demon, 
to  whom,  likewise,  they  assign  the  formation 
of  the    world."      Of  individuals   holding   such 


*  Tertullian.  Advers.  Marcion.  Lib.  IV.  c.  6.  p.  416.  Tertul- 
lian  often  elsewhere  refers  to  the  doctrine  of  Marcion  concerning 
a  Jewish  Messiah  yet  to  come  from  the  Creator;  as,  Lib.  I.  c.  15. 
p.  373.  Lib.  IIL  c.  6.  p.  399.  c.  23.  pp.  410,  411.  Lib.  V.  cc.  8, 
9.  p.  471.  c.  16.  p.  481. 

VOL.   III.  2 


10  EVIDENCES  OF  THE 

opinions  we  nowhere  else  find  any  notice.  It 
is  not  improbable  that  Ptolemy  may  have  ex- 
pressed himself  very  loosely,  and  have  referred 
to  such  notions  as  were  entertained,  as  we 
shall  hereafter  see,  by  at  least  one  of  the  catho- 
lic fathers,  Athenagoras,  concerning  the  rule  of 
Satan  "  over  matter  and  the  forms  of  matter," 
and  may  have  brought  them  into  connection 
with  the  doctrine  of  the  Clementine  Homilies, 
that  a  part  of  the  Law  proceeded  from  Satan,* 
and  with  that  of  the  sectaries  spoken  of  by 
Clement  of  Alexandria,  who  represented  him 
as  the  author  of  the  whole.f  There  is,  how- 
ever, no  reason  to  doubt,  that  the  opinions  held 
by  the  Gnostics  in  general,  and  especially  those 
of  the  Marcionites,  led  to  extravagant  and  out- 
rageous errors  in  some  individuals.  But  how 
far  any  of  those  individuals  had  a  title  to  be 
called  Christians  is  uncertain.  Their  extrava- 
gances are  a  subject  concerning  which  our  in- 
formation is  very  scanty  and  unsatisfactory. 
They  attracted  so  little  notice  in  their  own 
time,  that  Clement  of  Alexandria  tells  us  gen- 
erally,   that    "  there    is   no   controversy, 

it   is    acknowledged    by   all,    that   the    Creator 
is  just."  t 


*  See  Vol.  II.  p.  249.  f  See  Vol.  II.  p.  132. 

X  Paedegog.  Lib.  I.  c.  8.  p.  141. 


GENUINENESS  OF   THE   GOSPELS.  11 

We  have  seen  what  were  the  general  con- 
ceptions of  the  Gnostics  respecting  the  Creator. 
The  thcosophic  Gnostics  associated  with  him 
other  powers,  subordinate  to  him,  as  agents  in 
the  government  of  the  world.  It  is  reported 
of  some,  as  formerly  mentioned,  that  they  be- 
lieved the  world  to  have  been  made  and  gov- 
erned by  angels  ;  but  it  is  not  improbable  that 
this  is  a  mere  vague  or  incorrect  account  of  a 
doctrine  essentially  the  same  with  that  of  the 
Valentinians.* 

The  theory  of  the  Gnostics,  in  ascribing  the 
creation  and  government  of  the  world  to  an 
inferior  being,  is  wholly  foreign  from  our  pres- 
ent belief.  But  it  should  not  be  brought  into 
view,  separate  from  all  its  connections,  as  some- 
thing to  be  wondered  at.  It  should  be  shown 
in  its  relations  to  the  doctrines  of  their  age,  to 
the  state  of  mankind  then  existing,  and  to  the 
tendencies  of  human  thought.  One  evident 
cause  of  its  adoption  appears  in  the  Gnostic 
doctrines  concerning  the  Jewish  dispensation 
and  the  Old  Testament.  The  Gnostics,  ad- 
mitting, in  common  with  other  Christians,  that 
the   Jewish    dispensation    proceeded    from    the 

*  See  Vol.  II.  p.  28. 


12  EVIDENCES  OF  THE 

Creator  and  Ruler  of  the  visible  world,  and 
being  at  the  same  time  unable  to  reconcile  the 
representations  given  of  him  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment with  their  conceptions  of  the  Supreme 
Being,  were  led  to  the  conclusion  that  the 
Creator  was  an  inferior  god.  But,  in  addition 
to  this,  their  theory  was  in  accordance  with  the 
philosophical  speculations  of  their  age.  The 
current  of  opinion  among  the  higher  class  of 
heathen  philosophers  set  in  the  same  direction. 
-It  was  more  or  less  coincident  with  doctrines 
that  had  been  widely  diffused,  and  which  were 
adopted  both  by  Jews  and  by  catholic  Chris- 
tians. The  supposition,  that  the  Supreme  Be- 
ing had  first  directly  interposed  in  human  affairs, 
and  had  first  made  himself  known  to  men,  by 
his  manifestation  in  Christ,  agreed,  in  the  view 
of  the  Gnostics,  with  the  actual  history  of  man- 
kind, with  the  character  of  the  Christian  dis- 
pensation, and  with  express  declarations  of 
Christ.  And  strange  as  their  theory  of  an  infe- 
rior Creator  may  appear  to  us,  there  has  been  a 
tendency  to  similar  speculations  even  among  in- 
telligent Christians  of  modern  times. 

These  are  topics  which  deserve  some  atten- 
tion ;  and  the  first  that  may  be  remarked  upon 
is  the  state  of  the  popular  and  the  philosophical 
religion  in   that  portion   of  the  heathen    world 


GENUINENESS  OF  THE  GOSPELS.  13 

by  which  the  Gnostics,  as  well  as  the  catholic 
Christians,  were  surrounded. 

Ln   the   popular  religion  of  the   Greeks    and 
Romans  there  was  no  recognition  of  God.     Its 
heaven  was  a  reflection  of  this  earth.     Its  gods 
were  formed  after  the  model  of  human  despots ; 
clothed   indeed  with  more   than   mortal  beauty 
and  might,  but  having  the  same  passions,   the 
same  gross  vices,  the   same   caprice,  the  same 
favoritism,  and  the  same  vindictiveness.     Among 
those   who   rejected    the    popular   superstitions, 
some,  as  the  Epicureans,  the  sect  of  the  wealthy, 
the  powerful,  and  the  worldly,  virtually  rejected, 
at   the    same    time,    all    religious    belief.      The 
Stoics,   the   most   devout   of  the   more   ancient 
sects,  ascribed  supreme  divinity  to  the  universe 
itself,  which  they  regarded  as  a  living  being,  or 
rather  to  the  soul  of  the  universe,  the  ethereal 
fire  which  they    supposed  to  pervade  and  ani- 
mate it ;  but  their  piety  consisted  in  their  being 
devout  polytheists,  though  not  according  to  the 
gross  conceptions  of  the  vulgar.     The  ancient 
heathen  philosophers,  before  the  time  of  Chris- 
tianity, regarded  matter  as  uncreated  ;  it  was  a 
common   opinion    that   the   world,   or  universe, 
was  without  beginning  ;  and  of  those  who  rec- 
ognized in  it  the  agency  of  divine  power,  many 


14  EVIDENCES  OF  THE 

conceived  of  this  power  as  having  been  in  eter- 
nal union  with  matter.  The  world,  in  their 
view,  was  one  complex,  ever-existent  being. 
This  doctrine  might  glimmer  into  a  dim  rec- 
ognition of  the  personality  of  the  divine  prin- 
ciple, but  it  as  commonly  sunk  into  pantheism, 
and  vague  polytheistic  notions  of  superintending 
divinities,  and  of  mysterious  laws  and  relations, 
operating  independently  of  the  will  of  any 
superior  being.  Aristotle  says,  that  most  of 
those  who  first  philosophized  or  theologized 
taught  that  matter  was  the  only  principle,  or 
the  first  cause  of  all  things  that  exist.*  He 
himself  conceived  of  God  as  a  sort  of  all- 
powerful,  incorporeal  magnet,  moving  without 
volition  the  uncreated  universe,  a  God  absorbed 
in  contemplation,  supremely  happy  in  himself, 
but  destitute  of  all  moral  attributes  exercised 
toward  other  beings.  Between  such  a  God 
and  mankind  there  could  be  no  moral  con- 
nection ;  and  accordingly  it  has  been  observed 
that  there  is  a  general  absence  of  religious  sen- 
timent from  his  writings.  We  find  a  remark- 
able passage  in  Plato,  in  which  he  introduces 
Socrates,  on  the  day  of  his  death,  as  describ- 
ing his  former  perplexity  in  studying  the  causes 


Metaphysic.  Lib.  1.  c.  3. 


GENUINENESS  OF  THE  GOSPELS.  15 

and  nature  of  things,  and  then  proceeding  with 
his  discourse  thus  :  —  "  But  on  hearing  one 
read  from  a  certain  book  (as  he  said,  of  Anax- 
agoras),  that  it  is  mind  which  orders  all  things, 
and  is  their  cause,  I  was  pleased  with  this 
cause,  and  it  seemed  to  me  to  be  in  some 
respects  a  satisfactory  supposition,  that  mind  is 
the  cause  of  all  things."  *  This  doctrine  Plato 
thus  represents  as  new  to  Socrates  ;  whom  he 
further  describes  as  dissatisfied  at  finding  that 
Anaxagoras,  in  the  detail  of  his  system, 
"  made,"  as  it  is  expressed,  "  no  use  of  mind  "  ; 
but,  as  if  he  had  not  introduced  this  principle, 
explained  effects  by  material  causes.f     In  the 


*  Phffido,  p.  97. 

f  Ibid.  p.  98.  —  With  Anaxagoras,  Socrates  during  the  earlier 
part  of  his  life  was  contemporary.  How  little  agency  he  gave 
to  mind  in  the  formation  of  the  universe  may  appear  from  what 
Diogenes  Laertius  says  (Lib.  II.  c.  3.  §  4),  that  he  taught  that 
"  animals  were  first  produced  from  moisture,  heat,  and  earthy 
matter;  and  afterwards  by  generation."  He,  however,  is  said  to 
have  been  the  first  who  represented  mind  as  the  disposer  of  mat- 
ter in  the  ordering  of  the  universe,  and  to  have  been  celebrated  on 
this  account.  (Diogenes  Laert.  II.  3.  I.  Cicero  de  Nat.  Deorum. 
Lib.  I.  §  11.)  Yet  Thales,  long  before  him,  is  also  said  to  have 
introduced  the  agency  of  mind.  But  Thales  belongs  to  the  fab- 
ulous age  of  Grecian  philosophy,  and  an  opinion  of  later  date  was 
not  improbably  ascribed  to  him.  The  contradiction  concerning  the 
respective  claims  of  Thales  and  Anaxagoras,  which  appears  in 
the  ancient  accounts  of  Grecian  philosophy,  and  especially  in  Cice- 
ro (Ibid.  §§  10,  11),  where  the  two  opposite  propositions  almost 


16  EVIDENCES  OF  THE 

authentic  exposition  of  the  doctrines  of  Soc- 
rates given  by  Xenophon,  the  divine  power  and 
providence  for  which  he  contends  are  repre- 
sented as  residing  in  and  exercised  by  the  gods ; 
though  there  are  expressions  which  imply  that 
he  had  a  presentiment  of  the  one  God.  To 
these  expressions  there  is,  1  think,  nothing  cor- 
responding in  the  language  of  Xenophon  him- 
self throughout  his  works.  Plato,  on  the  other 
hand,  with  little  reasoning  on  the  subject,  and 
without  any  definite  and  connected  explanation 
of  his  meaning,  has  imaginations  concerning  the 
Deity,  which  excite  our  surprise  and  admiration, 
when  we  compare  them  with  the  common  no- 
tions of  other  Grecian  philosophers  before  Chris- 
tianity. In  his  writings,  in  those  of  Cicero, 
and  in  the  half-poetical  conceptions  of  a  few 
other  men  of  a  high  order  of  intellect,  we  here 
and  there  discover,  amid  the  general  darkness 
of  those  times,  glorious,  but  very  partial  and 
obscure,  glimpses  of  God. 

But  what  is  particularly  to  be  remarked,  as 
analogous  to  the  views  of  the  Gnostics,  is,  that 
the   partial   recognition  of  the   Divinity  in   the 


confront  each  other,  —  one,  that  the  agency  of  mind  was  first 
taught  by  Anaxagoras,  and  the  other,  that  this  agency  had  been 
taught  by  Thales,  —  may,  perhaps,  be  explained  by  the  little 
credit  which  was  given  to  the  latter  account. 


GENUINENESS   OF  THE   GOSPELS.  17 

mind  of  a  heathen  philosopher  did  not  lead  to 
such  conceptions  of  his  universal  and  immediate 
agency  as  Christianity  has  taught  us  to  enter- 
tain. It  was  connected  with  the  supposition, 
that  the  world  was  under  the  government  of 
inferior  gods.  Plato  was  one  of  the  most  en- 
lightened of  heathen  theists,  the  great  theologi- 
cal philosopher  of  antiquity.  But  the  Gnostic 
doctrine  respecting  the  formation  and  govern- 
ment of  the  world  by  inferior  agents  may  be 
traced  back  to  his  speculations.  We  find  its 
germ  in  the  cosmogony  which  he  has  left  us  in 
his  "  Timaeus." 

In  this  work,  Plato  represents  the  Supreme 
Ruler  of  All  as  giving  birth  to  gods  inferior  to 
himself,  celestial,  animating  the  heavenly  bodies 
and  informing  them  with  intelligence.  Togeth- 
er with  these,  he  speaks  of  the  earth  as  the 
first  and  most  ancient  of  the  gods  comprehended 
within  the  universe  ;  and  afterwards  mentions 
the  gods  of  the  popular  mythology,  without 
clearly  explaining  his  own  opinion  concerning 
them,  but  teaching  that  they  are  to  be  received 
as  divine.  He  then  describes  the  Supreme 
Being  as  thus  addressing  the  newly  formed 
gods:  —  "Now  learn  what  I  shall  teach  you. 
Three  kinds  of  mortal  animals  are  yet  unpro- 


18  EVIDENCES  OF  THE 

duced.*  Without  the  existence  of  these,  the 
universe  will  be  incomplete ;  for  it  will  not 
contain  every  kind  of  living  being  ;  as  it  should 
do,  in  order  to  be  perfect.  But  if  these  beings 
were  formed  and  endued  with  life  by  me,  they 
would  equal  the  gods.  In  order,  therefore,  that 
mortal  beings  may  exist,  and  that  the  universe 
may  be  a  complete  whole,  do  you,  according  to 
your  nature,  take  upon  yourselves  the  creation  of 
animals,  imitating  my  power  exercised  in  your 
production.  And  as  to  that  part  in  those  ani- 
mals [the  intellectual  part]  which  it  is  fit  should 
be  of  like  name  with  the  immortals,  being  called 
divine,  and  which  will  rule  those  among  them 
who  are  willing  to  be  obedient  to  justice  and  to 
you,  I  will  furnish  this  seed  and  make  a  begin- 
ning. For  the  rest,  do  you  weave  together  the 
mortal  with  the  immortal  part,  and  fashion  and 
give  birth  to  animals,  providing  them  with  food 
for  their  increase,  and  receiving  them  again 
when  they  perish." 

Plato,  then,  conformably  to  his  doctrine  of 
preexistence,  represents  the  Deity  as  forming 
at  once  all  human  souls,  and  committing  them 


*  The  three  kinds,  as  enumerated  before  by  Plato  (Timaeus, 
pp.  39,  40),  are  those  which  fly,  those  which  dwell  in  the  water, 
and  those  which  walk  the  earth. 


GENUINENESS  OF  THE -GOSPELS.  19 

to  the  care  of  the  inferior  gods.  They  were 
distributed  in  equal  portions  to  the  stars,  or,  as 
he  afterward  says,  some  to  the  earth,  some  to 
the  moon,  and  some  to  the  other  measurers  of 
time,  to  be  embodied  in  proper  season.  "  He 
gave,"  says  Plato,  "  to  the  newly  created  gods 
the  office  of  forming  mortal  bodies,  and  what 
was  further  necessary  to  be  conjoined  with  the 
human  soul,  of  furnishing  whatever  is  con- 
nected with  these  inferior  parts  of  man,  and  of 
ruling  and  directing  the  mortal  animal  in  the 
best  manner,  except  so  far  as  he  may  cause  evil 
to  himself."  * 

Plato,  it  appears,  believed  that  the  Supreme 
Beins  exercised  no  immediate  government  over 
the  concerns  of  men.  The  Gnostics  believed 
the  same.  Plato  taught,  that  man,  as  he  ex- 
ists on  earth,  and  the  lower  animals,  with  all 
the  provision  made  for  their  wants,  were  the 
work  of  inferior  powers.  With  this  the  doc- 
trine of  the  Gnostics  coincided.  He  supposed 
the  immortal  part  of  man  to  have  been  furnished 
by  the  Supreme  Being;  and  the  theosophic 
Gnostics,  in  like  manner,  taught  that  the  spir- 
itual principle  in  man,  which  alone  was  by  na- 
ture immortal,  was  derived  from  the  Pleroma. 


*  Timaeus,  pp.  39-42.     Conf.  p.  69. 


20  EVIDENCES  OF  THE 

It  is  unnecessary  here  to  explain  the  vague, 
undetermined,  dazzling  conceptions  of  the  Su- 
preme Being  which  floated  in  misty  light  before 
the  mind  of  Plato.  As  regards  our  present 
purpose,  the  point  to  be  attended  to  is  the  im- 
passable distance  to  which  he  removes  him  from 
the  beings  of  this  earth,  and  the  interposition 
of  inferior  gods,  as  the  immediate  makers  and 
governors  of  men,  and  the  proper  objects  of 
their  religious  worship.  He  does  not  remark, 
that  to  Him  no  temples  were  raised,  no  prayers 
addressed,  no  devotion  of  the  heart  offered  up. 
He  was  that  Unknown  God,  whom  St.  Paul, 
three  centuries  after  the  death  of  the  philoso- 
pher, first  announced  to  the  Athenians  as  the 
only  God,  who  alone  "  made  the  world  and  all 
that  it  contains,  and  gave  to  all  life  and  breath 
and  all  things." 

In  the  tenth  book  of  his  "  Laws,"  Plato 
defends  earnestly  the  doctrine  of  a  divine  provi- 
dence, nor  has  he  written  any  thing  of  a  more 
religious  character.  Here,  as  elsewhere  in  his 
writings,  one  benevolent  being,  the  author  of 
all  good,  sometimes  breaks  through  the  cloud  ;  * 
but  the  whole  tenor  of  the  discourse   is  to  de- 


*  I  refer  particularly   to   what  is  said,    p.    896,   seqq.,   and 
pp.  903,  904. 


GENUINENESS   OF  THE   GOSPELS.  21 

fend  the  existence,  the  providence,  and  the  wor- 
ship of  the  gods.  In  another  part  of  the  same 
work,  after  saying  that  the  only  way  to  obtain 
the  friendship  of  God  (to  translate  verbally),  or 
(to  express  what  I  suppose  the  true  meaning) 
the  friendship  of  Divinity,  —  of  what  is  Divine, 
—  is  to  become  like  God,  he  says,  that  hence 
"  follows  a  principle,  the  best  and  truest  of  all, 
that  for  a  good  man  to  offer  sacrifices  and  to 
have  intercourse  with  the  gods  [the  word  is  here 
in  the  plural]  by  vows,  and  oblations,  and  every 
form  of  worship,  is  in  the  highest  degree  beauti- 
ful and  good,  most  conducive  to  a  happy  life, 
and  exceedingly  proper  ;  while  the  contrary  of 
all  this  is  true  as  regards  a  bad  man."  *  There 
was  nothing,  I  think,  incongruous  with  the  the- 
ology either  of  Socrates  or  Plato  in  the  belief 
of  the  former  that  he  was  under  the  guidance 
of  a  good  daemon  ;  nor  in  his  directing,  just 
before  his  death,  a  cock  to  be  sacrificed  to  iEscu- 
lapius,  considered  as  the  god  who  delivered  men 
from  the  maladies  of  life  ;  nor  in  the  respect 
which  his  disciple  Xenophon  had  for  the  heathen 
auguries  and  rites  of  worship. 

In    the  work  of   Plato   from    which    I    have 
quoted  f    there    are    two    other   opinions    that 


*  De  Legibus,  Lib.  IV.  p.  716. 

f  I  hardly  know  whether,  in  thus  quoting  the  "  Laws,"  it  is 


22  EVIDENCES  OF  THE 

deserve  notice  in  relation  to  our  subject.     One 
is,  that  lie  conceives  that  there  are  in  the  uni- 
verse two  souls,  or  principles  of  life,  one  good 
and  the  other  evil.*     To  this  we  shall  hereafter 
have  occasion  to  refer.     The  other  is,  that  here, 
as  elsewhere,  he  regards  the  stars,   and    espe- 
cially the   bodies  of  our  solar  system,   as  ani- 
mated or  moved   by  gods  who  ruled  over   the 
earth.f     With  this  I  conceive  that  the  doctrine 
of  the  theosophic  Gnostics  corresponded.     They 
ascribed  to  the  Creator  six  assistant  angels,  to 
whom  together  with  him  they  assigned   seven 
heavens   or   spheres,   of  which    they  were    the 
informing  spirits. J     There  can   be  little  doubt 
that  they  regarded  these  spheres  as  those  of  the 
Sun,  the  Moon,  and   the  five   primary  planets, 
besides   the   Earth,  with  which   they  were  ac- 
quainted. 

worth  while  to  notice  the  skepticism  of  a  modern  German  editor 
of  Plato,  Ast  (Platon's  Leben  und  Schriften,  p.  384,  seqq.),  who 
denies  to  Plato  the  authorship  of  this  work,  which  is  ascribed  to 
him  by  his  disciple  Aristotle.  If  it  were  not  his  work,  there  must 
have  been  another  pliilosopher  wholly  unknown,  another  Plato, 
we  may  say,  lost  in  obscurity,  who  as  much  deserved  to  be  re- 
membered as  his  contemporary  whose  name  has  spread  over  the 
world. 

*  De  Legibus,  Lib.  X.  p.  896. 

t  De  Legibus,  Lib.  YII.  pp.  821,  822.     Lib.  X.  pp.  886,  898, 
899.     Timeeus,  pp.  39,  40. 

%  Irenaeus.  Lib.  I.  c.  5.  §  2.  p.  24. 


GENUINENESS  OF  THE  GOSPELS.  23 

The  doctrine,  that  the  world  is  governed  by 
powers  inferior  to  the  Supreme,  appears  through- 
out the  writings  of  Plato.  I  will  give  one  or 
two  more  examples.  In  that  imperishable  ac- 
count which  he  has  left  of  the  last  hours  of 
Socrates,  in  which  the  striking  sentiment  forms 
such  a  contrast  with  the  wretched  reasoning,  he 
represents  the  friends  of  that  philosopher  as 
inquiring,  "  How  he  could  with  so  much  ease 
leave  them,  and  the  gods  whom  he  himself 
professed  to  be  beneficent  rulers."  Amid  the 
moral  sublimity  of  this  dialogue,  we  should 
hardly  have  been  surprised,  if  Socrates  had 
directly  raised  his  mind  to  the  one  Supreme, 
and  replied  in  such  language  as  a  Christian 
might  use,  that  he  was 

"  Safe  in  the  hand  of  one  disposing  Power, 
Or  in  the  natal,  or  the  mortal  hour." 

But  the  answer  of  the  philosopher  is  different. 
It  is  sufficient  for  my  purpose  to  give  only  its 
commencement:  —  "If  I  did  not  think  that  I 
was  going  in  the  first  place  to  other  gods  wise 
and  good,  and  then  to  men  who  have  died 
better  than  those  who  are  here,  I  should  be 
wrong  in  not  being  distressed  at  the  thought 
of  death."  * 

*  Phffido,  p.  63.     Conf.  p.  69. 


24  EVIDENCES  OF  THE 

In  the  seventh  book  of  his  "  Laws,"  Plato 
says :  —  "As  regards  what  is  in  the  highest 
sense  divine,  and  the  universal  world,*  it  is 
affirmed  [by  the  generality]  that  we  must  not 
busy  ourselves  in  searching  into  the  laws  of 
their  nature ;  for  that  this  is  unholy."  By 
"  what  is  in  the  highest  sense  divine,"  Plato 
apparently  intends  the  Sun  and  the  Moon,  "  the 
great  gods,"  as  he  calls  them,  and  the  planets, 
to  which  in  common  with  them  he  gives  the 
name  of  "  celestial  gods."  In  opposition  to  the 
rule  just  alleged,  he  proceeds  to  state  what  he 
represents  as  facts  concerning  these  divinities, 
very  important  even  in  their  religious  bearing, 
namely,  that  their  apparent  are  not  their  real 
motions,  but  that  they  revolve  in  circles  ;  and 
that  those  of  them  which  seem  to  move  most 
swiftly  in  fact  move  most  slowly. 

"  It  is  difficult,"  says  Plato,  in  a  passage 
which  at  once  throws  a  broad  light  over  the 
whole  subject,  "  to  discover  the  Maker  and 
Father  of  the  universe,  and  impossible,  when 
discovered,  to  speak  of  him  to  the  generality."  f 
Cicero    in    his   version    of    this    passage    uses 


*  To;'  niyicTTOv  6eov  Kai  oKov  tov  Koafiov  :  verbally,  "  The  great- 
est God  and  the  whole  world."  p.  821. 
t  Timseus,  p.  28. 


GENUINENESS  OF  THE  GOSPELS.  25 

Stronger  language,  —  "  To  point  him  out  to  the 
vulgar  is  forbidden."  *  Cicero,  himself,  who 
in  clearness  of  mind,  good  sense,  and  high  moral 
sentiment,  stands  almost  or  altogether  alone 
among  the  wise  of  ancient  times,  in  his  treatise 
"  Concerning  Laws,"  suggested  by  that  of 
Plato,  enforces  like  him  the  worship  of  the 
gods.  In  discussing  what  he  regarded  as  the 
fundamental  doctrine  of  religion,  it  is  "  Of  the 
Nature  of  the  Gods  "  that  he  treats,  and  it  is 
their  providence  which  he  represents  the  most 
religious  as  asserting.  In  the  first  part  of  the 
following  sentence  the  Christian  Lactantius  may 
express  himself  too  strongly,  especially  if  he  is 
to  be  understood  as  referring  to  the  times  before 
Christianity,  but  he  does  not  express  himself 
too  strongly  in  its  conclusion.  "Though  poets," 
he  says,  "  and  philosophers,  and  even  polythe- 
ists,  often  acknowledge  the  Supreme  God,  yet 
no  one  has  ever  entered  into  any  inquiry  or 
discussion  concerning  his  worship  or  the  honor 
due  to  him."  f 

The  philosophy  of  Plato,  which,  in  recogniz- 


*  "  Indicate  in  vulgus  nefas." 

f  "  Sed  tamen  summum  Deum,  cum  et  philosophi,  et  poetae,  et 
ipsi  denique  qui  deos  colant,  saepe  fateantur,  de  cuitu  tamen  et 
honoribus  ejus  nemo  unquam  requisivit,  nemo  disseruit."  De  Ira 
Dei,  §  11. 

VOL.  III.  4 


26  EVIDENCES   OF  THE 

ing  a  supreme  Being  as  a  glorious  but  indistinct 
vision,  removed  him  at  the  same  time  from  all 
superintendence  of  the  concerns  of  men,  and 
subjected  these  to  the  government  of  inferior 
gods,  in  the  worship  of  whom  all  practical  re- 
ligion consisted,  was  the  highest  theology  of 
ancient  Greece  and  Rome  before  Christianity.* 
This  theology  was  the  basis  of  the  theory  com- 
mon to  the  Gnostics.  But  they  modified  it  by 
two  leading  conceptions  which  they  derived 
from  Christianity.  Admitting  the  truth  of  both 
the  Jewish  and  Gospel  history,  they  maintained 
that  the  Unknown  God  had  at  last  manifested 
himself  to  men  through  Christ,  and  had  called 
them  away  from  the  worship  of  the  ruler  or 
rulers  of  this  material  universe  ;  and,  conform- 
ably to  the  manner  in  which  they  received  and 
interpreted  the  declarations  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, they  thought  that  its  ruler  or  the  chief 
among  its  rulers  was  the  god  of  the  Jews. 
There  was  a  family  likeness  between  the  the- 
ology of  the  heathen  philosophers  and  that  of 
the  Gnostics.     But  the  catholic  Christians,  not- 


*  Respecting  the  theology  of  the  ancient  philosophers,  one  may 
further  consult  Leland's  "  Advantage  and  Necessity  of  the  Chris- 
tian Revelation  "  (Part  I.  Ch.  X-XVIL),  —  a  work  of  uncom- 
mon trustworthiness  and  value. 


GENUINENESS  OF  THE  GOSPELS.  27 

withstanding  some  striking  resemblances  which 
we  shall  hereafter  observe,  were  essentially  sep- 
arated from  both.  "  We  shall  not,"  says  Ter- 
tullian,  "  approximate  to  the  opinions  of  Qen- 
tiles,  who,  if  ever  they  are  compelled  to  ac- 
knowledge God,  introduce  other  gods  below 
him."  * 

But  the  doctrine  of  a  subordinate  agency  in 
the  creation  and  government  of  the  world  was 
not  confined  to  the  heathen  philosophers  and 
the  Gnostics.  Before  the  time  of  the  latter,  it 
had  passed  into  the  theology  of  the  Jews.  The 
Jewish  philosopher,  Philo,  in  commenting  upon 
the  words,  "  Let  us  make  man,"  repeatedly 
represents  the  Deity  as  addressing  his  Powers, 
and  charging  them  with  the  formation  of  all 
that  may  tend  to  evil  in  the  mind  of  man,  be- 
cause "  he  deemed  it  requisite  to  assign  to  other 
artificers  the  production  of  evil,  reserving  to 
himself  alone  the  production  of  good."  f  In 
this  hypothesis,  Philo  is  not  always  consistent 
with  himself ;  nor  does  it  agree  throughout  with 
that  of  the   Gnostics.      But   the    rudiments  of 


*  Adversus  Hermogenem,  c.  7.  p.  235. 

t  De  Profugis,  Tom.  I.  p.  556.    De  Mundi  Opificio.  I.  17.    De 
Confusione  Linguarum.  I.  431,  seqq. 


28  EVIDENCES  OF  THE 

various  Gnostic  speculations  exist  in  his  writ- 
ings ;  and  the  transition  was  easy  from  his  doc- 
trine of  subordinate  ministers,  introduced  that 
God  might  not  be  considered  as  the  author  of 
evil,  to  the  Gnostic  doctrine  of  the  Creator 
with  his  associates.  He  himself,  as  may  be 
perceived  from  what  has  been  before  said,  de- 
rived his  doctrine  from  Plato.* 

In  the  later  Rabbis  may  be  found  the  con- 
ception, that  seventy  angels  ruled  over,  and 
were  the  gods  of,  the  seventy  nations  into  which 
the  Gentile  world  was  supposed  to  be  divided  ; 
while  the  Creator  is  represented  as  reserving 
the  Israelites  for  himself,  and  is  sometimes  said 
to  be  their  immediate  governor,  and  sometimes 
to  have  appointed  over  them  the  archangel 
Michael  as  his  vicegerent.  The  angels  ruling 
the  Gentiles  are  by  some  described  as  seventy 
angels  who  surround  the  throne  of  God  and 
form  his  council ;  by  some,  in  accordance  with 
a  common  belief  of  antiquity,  as  spirits  animat- 
ing planets  and  stars  and  governing  through 
their  influences  ;  and  by  some  as  evil  spirits,  the 


*  See  before,  pp.  17,  18.  —  I  do  not  enlarge  on  the  opinions 
of  Philo  in  relation  to  the  subject  before  us,  as  I  have  formerly 
explained  them  at  some  length  in  another  work.  See  "  Reasons 
for  not  believing  the  Doctrines  of  Trinitarians,"  Section  X. 
p.  251,  seqq. 


GENUINENESS  OF  THE  GOSPELS.  29 

idolatrous  gods  of  the  Gentiles,  having  for  their 
chief  Sammael,  the  angel  of  death,  the  same 
with  Satan.  It  was  supposed  that  the  different 
nations  prospered  or  suffered  according  to  their 
rule ;  and  that,  when  these  nations  were  at 
war,  their  angels  warred  together  likewise.* 
If  these  were  merely  the  notions  of  the  later 
Jews,  they  would  not  deserve  notice  in  refer- 
ence to  our  present  subject ;  but  similar  con- 
ceptions prevailed  among  the  Jews  soon  after 
their  return  from  the  Babylonish  captivity.  We 
find  them  in  the  book  which  they  ascribed  to 
Daniel,  where  the  prince,  that  is,  the  angel,  of 
Persia  is  represented  as  having  withstood  an- 
other angel,  till  Michael,  who  is  spoken  of  as  the 
angel  of  the  Jews,  came  to  his  assistance  ;  and 
where  the  prince  or  angel  of  Greece  is  likewise 
mentioned.f  These  conceptions  appear  also  in 
the  false  rendering  given  in  the  Septuagint  of  a 
passage  in  Deuteronomy  :  t  —  "  When  the  Most 
High  divided  to  the  nations  their  inheritance, 
when  he  separated  the  sons  of  Adam,  he  deter- 
mined the  boundaries  of  the  nations  according 
to  the  number  of  the  children  of  Israel."     In- 


*  Eisenmengers  Entdectes  Judenthum ;  i.  e.  Judaism  Unveiled. 
Th.  I.  p.  803,  seqq. 

t  Daniel  x.  13,  20.  J  Ch.  xxxii.  8. 


30  EVIDENCES  OF  THE 

Stead  of  the  last  clause,  "  according  to  the  num- 
ber of  the  children  of  Israel,"  the  rendering  of 
the  Septuagint  is,  "  according  to  the  number  of 
the  angels." 

The  doctrine  of  the  Jews  concerning  the 
government  of  the  heathen  world  by  angels  was 
adopted  by  many  of  the  fathers,  who  appealed 
for  proof  of  it  to  the  passage  in  the  Septuagint 
just  mentioned,  and  to  the  representations  in 
Daniel.  It  deserves  notice,  not  as  showing  the 
coincidence,  but  the  parallelism,  of  opinions, 
that  Origen  introduces  this  doctrine  in  oppo- 
sition to  an  opinion  advanced  by  Celsus,  that 
the  nations  were  each  ruled  by  a  power  or 
powers,  to  whom  it  had  been  committed  from 
the  beginning,  and  whose  peculiar  laws  and 
worship  each  was  bound  to  maintain.*  Re- 
specting the  character  of  these  angels  of  the 
nations,  the  opinions  of  the  fathers  were  un- 
settled, like  those  of  the  Jewish  Rabbis.  The 
prevailing  conception  of  Origen  appears  to  have 
been,  that,  though  appointed  by  God  to  their 
office,  they  had  become  degenerate  and  bad  ; 
and  that,  when  Christ  was  manifested,  their 
dread  of  losing  their  rule  made  them  enemies 

*  Cont.  Celsum,  Lib.  V.  §§  25,  26.  0pp.  I.  596,  seqq. 


GENUINENESS  OF  THE  GOSPELS.  31 

of  him  and  his  followers.*  Regarding  the 
heathen  world  as  subject  to  them,  he  expresses 
himself  concerning  the  coming  of  Christ  in  such 
language  as  might  have  been  used  by  the  Gnos- 
tics :  —  "  As,  then,  the  princes  of  this  world  [the 
angels  ruling  this  world]  had  seized  on  the 
portion  of  the  Lord,  it  was  necessary  for  the 
good  Shepherd,  leaving  the  ninety-nine  in 
heaven,  to  descend  to  earth,  that  he  might  find 
and  bear  away  on  his  shoulders  the  sheep  that 
was  lost,  and  bring  it  back  to  the  fold  of  per- 
fection above."  t  The  conception  of  Christ's 
leaving  ninety-nine  of  his  flock  in  heaven,  and 
of  his  bearing  back  thither  the  sheep  that  was 
lost,  is  founded  on  doctrines  which  Origen  de- 
rived from  Plato.  Following  Plato,  Origen  be- 
lieved in  the  preexistence  of  souls,  and  that 
those  souls  that  were  here  embodied  had  fallen 
from  a  higher  state.  The  theosophic  Gnostics, 
likewise,  believed  that  the  spiritual  principle, 
so  far  as  it  existed  in  men,  or,  in  other  words,  the 
spirits  of  men,  had  fallen  from  the  Pleroma,  and 
that  the  Saviour  had  come  to  deliver  what  was 


*  De  Principiis,  Lib.  III.  c.  3.  0pp.  I.  143.  Homil.  in  Gene- 
sin,  IX.  ^  3.  0pp.  II.  85,  86.  Comment,  in  Epist.  ad  Romanes. 
Lib.  Vm.  §  12.  0pp.  IV.  639. 

t  Homil.  IX.  in  Genesin,  ubi  sup. 


32  EVIDENCES  OF  THE 

spiritual  from  its  connection  with  matter,  and  to 
restore  it  to  its  original  seat.  Some  of  them,  it 
may  seem  from  what  is  said  by  Irenaeus,  applied 
the  parable  of  the  lost  sheep  in  much  the  same 
manner  as  it  was  used  by  Origen.* 

Parallel  with  the  doctrine  concerning  the 
government  of  the  heathen  world  by  angels  was 
another  concerning  the  gods  of  the  Heathens  ; 
but  the  bearing  of  the  two  upon  each  other  does 
not  appear  to  have  been  so  defined  as  to  make 
it  possible  to  adjust  them  together  into  one 
connected  and  consistent  scheme.  "  The  Gen- 
tiles," says  St.  Paul,  "  offer  their  sacrifices  to 
daemons,  and  not  to  God  "  ;  f  and  there  is  no 
doubt  that  the  word  "  daemon  "  is  used  by  the 
Apostle  in  a  bad  sense.  Accordingly,  the  fa- 
thers regarded  the  gods  of  the  pagan  mythology 
as  evil  daemons,  ministers  of  Satan.  Him  they 
conceived  of  as  ruling  over  them  and  their 
pagan  worshippers.  In  the  view  of  the  fathers, 
those  gods  were  impure  spirits,  burdened  with 
material  vehicles,  and  inhaling  for  their  nour- 
ishment the  fumes  of  incense  and  sacrifices. 
Whatever  marvels  in  the   pagan  religion  were 


*  Cont.  Haeres.  Lib.  I.  c.  8.  §  4.  p.  39.  c.  16,  §  1.  p.  80. 
t  1  Corinthians  x.  20. 


GENUINENESS   OF  THE   GOSPELS.  33 

not  the  work  of  human  fraud,  whatever  was 
really  supernatural  in  oracles,  omens,  and  ap- 
pearances of  the  gods,  was  to  be  ascribed  to 
them.  They  were  deadly  enemies  of  Chris- 
tianity, through  which  their  worship  was  to  be 
done  away,  and  were  continually  exciting  their 
worshippers  to  persecute  and  destroy  the  Chris- 
tians. The  pagan  world  was,  in  a  certain 
sense,  the  realm  of  Satan.  These  conceptions 
have  been  adopted,  and  made  familiar  to  modern 
readers,  by  the  great  poet  of  Christian  my- 
thology, who  describes  the  fallen  angels  as 
becoming 

"known  to  men  by  various  names, 
And  various  idols,  through  the  heathen  viforld." 

The  doctrine  concerning  the  rule  of  Satan 
over  the  world  finally  assumed  a  form  among 
catholic  Christians,  in  which  it  may  be  com- 
pared with  the  most  unfavorable  representations 
that  have  been  given  of  Gnosticism,  and  in 
which  it  is  not  distinguished  by  any  character- 
istic that  may  recommend  it  from  what  was 
regarded  as  the  odious  heresy  of  the  Manichae- 
ans.  Even  so  early  as  the  second  century,  the 
lineaments  of  that  belief  on  this  subject  which 
afterwards  prevailed  are  distinctly  traced  in  a 
passage  of  Athenagoras,      According  to  Athe- 


34  EVIDENCES  OF  THE 

nagoras,  Satan  was  originally  created  an  angel 
of  light,  and  intrusted  by  God  with  the  admin- 
istration of  matter  and  the  forms  of  matter. 
This  ruler  over  matter,  and  the  other  angels 
who  rule  over  the  affairs  of  this  first  "  firma- 
ment," fell  into  sin  through  the  abuse  of  their 
moral  liberty.  Satan  became  an  enemy  of 
God ;  and  his  administration  is  opposite  to  the 
goodness  of  God.  Hence,  he  says,  the  poet 
Euripides  doubted  whether  there  was  any  divine 
providence  over  the  concerns  of  men,  and  the 
philosopher  Aristotle  denied  its  existence.  Ac- 
cording to  Athenagoras  himself,  the  providence 
of  God  regulates  the  general  order  of  the  uni- 
verse, but  "  men  are  moved  and  carried  in  dif- 
ferent directions  according  to  the  nature  of  each, 
and  the  operations  of  that  ruler  who  is  over 
them,  and  of  his  associate  demons,"  who  excite 
in  men  irregular  desires  conformable  to  their 
own  natures.* 

Thus,  instead  of  the  Gnostic  Creator,  Athe- 
nagoras subjected  men  to  the  government  of 
Satan,  whom  he  viewed  as  the  ruler  of  matter. 
This  was  his  solution  of  the  existence  of  evil. 
The  doctrine  was    remotely  derived    from    the 


*  Athenagorae   Legatio   pro   Christianis,   pp.    302-304.     Ed. 
Benedict. 


GENUINENESS   OF  THE  GOSPELS.  35 

Persian  theology,  into  which  it  had  been  intro- 
duced to  solve  the  same  difficulty.  We  will 
briefly  trace  its  history ;  for  in  different  forms  it 
entered  both  into  the  theology  of  the  orthodox 
church  and  the  heresies  of  the  Gnostics  and  the 
Manichaeans. 

Our  sources  of  information  respecting  the 
Persian  theology,  including  the  collection  of 
writings  entitled  the  Zend-Avesta,  are  of  such 
uncertain  credit,  and  so  imperfect  and  contra- 
dictory, that  we  can  speak  with  but  little  con- 
fidence of  its  history  or  vicissitudes,  or  of  the 
detail  of  any  particular  system  in  which  it  ap- 
peared. But  notwithstanding  the  cloud  which 
has  spread  over  it,  some  remarkable  character- 
istics are  to  be  obscurely  discerned.  The  Per- 
sian sages  appear  from  an  early  period  to  have 
held  in  some  form  or  other  the  belief  of  one 
supreme  beneficent  Being.  But  they  regarded 
the  universe  as  divided  into  two  opposite  em- 
pires, the  empire  of  light  and  the  empire  of 
darkness.  The  former  was  conceived  of  as  the 
region  of  pure  and  happy  beings,  over  whom 
reigned  the  beneficent  God,  Ormuzd.  The 
latter  was  the  domain  of  evil,  peopled  with 
malignant  demons  under  the  rule  of  Ahriman. 
This  world  was  conceived  of  as  being  on  the 
confines  of  these  two  empires,  the  result  of  their 


36  EVIDENCES  OF  THE 

commingling  and  strife,  the  seat  of  their  warfare, 
a  region  where  the  beneficent  God  and  the 
Prince  of  Evil  held  divided  sway.  Hence  it  is, 
to  use  words  that  express  the  doctrine  as  truly  as 
would  the  simplest  prose,  that 

"  the  same  earth 
Bears  fruit  and  poison  ;  where  the  camel  finds 
His  fragrant  food,  the  horned  viper  there 
Sucks  in  the  juice  of  death  :  the  elements 
Now  serve  the  use  of  man,  and  now  assert 
Dominion  o'er  his  weakness  :  dost  thou  hear 
The  sound  of  merriment  and  nuptial  song  1 
From  the  next  house  proceeds  the  mourner's  cry, 
Lamenting  o'er  the  dead." 

The  Persian  doctrine  implies  but  a  very  im- 
perfect conception  of  the  omnipotence  of  God. 
But  the  same  remark  may  be  made  of  every 
other  ancient  system  of  theology,  excepting  the 
Christian.  Nor  is  it  probable  that  the  generality 
of  ancient  Christians  entertained  any  adequate 
ideas  of  this  divine  attribute.  These  are  facts 
which  it  is  necessary  to  bear  in  mind  in  studying 
the  theological  speculations  of  the  ancients,  which 
may  otherwise  appear  to  us  even  more  incongru- 
ous than  they  were. 

Manes,  or  Manichaeus,  who  was  a  Persian, 
blended  with  Christianity  the  theology  of  his 
country ;  and  thus,  in  the  latter  half  of  the 
third  century,  became  the  founder  of  the  sect  of 
the  Manichaeans.     In  common  with  the  Gnos- 


GENUINENESS   OF  THE  GOSPELS.  37 

tics,  and  other  framers  of  religious  systems,  it 
was  a  main  purpose  with  him  to  account  for  the 
origin  of  evil.  Ahrimui  was,  in  his  system, 
easily  converted  into  Satan ;  and  according  to 
him,  evil  had  its  origin  in  eternal  matter  necessa- 
rily existing,  and  the  demons  resident  in  it  and 
ruling  over  it,  of  whom  Satan  was  the  chief. 
They  had  made  an  incursion  into  the  spiritual 
world,  and,  seizing  upon  a  portion  of  spirit,  had 
mingled  it  with  matter  and  founded  this  world. 
To  redeem  this  portion  of  spirit  from  its  enthral- 
ment  was  the  purpose  of  the  interposition  of 
God  by  Christ,  and  by  Manes  himself,  who  was 
Christ's  successor,  and  the  perfecter  of  his 
work. 

From  the  Ahriman  of  the  Persians,  the  Jews, 
long  before  the  time  of  Manes,  probably  de- 
rived their  conception  of  Satan,  the  Adversary 
of  God  and  man.  Their  notions  concerning 
him  were,  however,  modified  by  their  belief  of 
the  supremacy  of  God,  so  that  they  regarded 
him  as  always  under  God's  control.  But  he 
and  his  ministers  were  popularly  conceived  of 
by  them,  as  causing  the  moral  and  physical  dis- 
orders in  the  world,  as  tempting  men  to  sin, 
and  vexing  them  with  diseases.  From  the 
Jews  this  conception  passed  into  the  theology 
of  Christians.      Our  Saviour  in  his  discourses 


38  EVIDENCES  OF  THE 

used  forms  of  speech  founded  upon  these  no- 
tions of  his  countrymen.  It  was  his  purpose 
to  give  his  hearers  a  more  vivid  impression  of 
the  evil  of  certain  acts  and  states  of  character 
by  thus  figuratively  referring  them  to  Satan  as 
their  source,  and  associating  them  with  his 
hateful  and  terrific  image.  The  same  use  of 
language  likewise  occurs  in  the  writings  of  the 
Apostles ;  and  though  they  nowhere  teach  the 
popular  doctrine  as  a  doctrine  of  religion,  yet  it 
is  not  probable  that  the  mind  of  any  one  of 
them  was  wholly  unaffected  by  it.  When,  ac- 
cordingly, this  belief  concerning  Satan  began  to 
prevail  among  Christians,  every  thing  in  the 
New  Testament  which  appeared  to  favor  it  was 
interpreted  literally,  and  made  a  ground  for  fur- 
ther inferences.  We  have  seen  the  form  which 
it  had  early  assumed  in  the  writings  of  Athe- 
nagoras ;  but  the  ghastly  phantom  which  he 
presents  as  ruling  over  the  world  afterwards 
dilated  its  terrors ;  * 

"  Horribili  super  adspectu  mortalibus  instans." 


*  Dr.  Thomas  Burnet  is  a  writer  not  likely  to  be  charged  with 
fanaticism  or  superstition.  One  may,  therefore,  be  somewhat  sur- 
prised at  meeting  with  a  passage  in  his  posthumous  work,  "  De 
Fide  et  Officiis  Christianorum  "  (p.  70),  of  which  the  following 
is  a  translation.  "  The  Gentiles  appear  to  have  given  themselves 
up  to  the  dominion  of  evil  spirits,  who  by  the  permission  of  God 


GENUINENESS   OF  THE  GOSPELS.  39 

Far  the  greater  part  of  men,  according  to  the 
creeds  of  those  days,  were  born,  and  ever  con- 
tinued to  be,  "  bond  slaves  of  Satan  "  ;  and  the 
remainder  were  constantly  suffering  from  his 
assaults  and  machinations. 

The  doctrine  of  Athenagoras,  which  subjected 
the  world  to  the  rule  of  Satan,  is  more  objec- 
tionable than  the  Gnostic  doctrine,  which  sub- 
jected it  to  the  rule  of  the  Creator.  But  many 
or  most  of  the  Gnostics,  as  we  shall  again  have 
occasion  to  observe,  appear  likewise  to  have 
introduced   Satan,  or  the   animate   principle  of 


had  obtained  the  empire  of  this  world.  To  this  their  chief  laid 
claim,  when,  having  shown  to  Christ  all  the  kingdoms  of  the 
world  and  their  glory,  he  said  to  him,  Luke  iv.  6,  Iivill  give  thee 
power  over  the  whole  and  the  glory  of  those  kingdoms,  for  it  is  com- 
mitted to  me,  and  I  give  it  to  lohom  I  will.  We  know  that  the 
Devil  is  a  deceiver ;  but  Christ  himself  also  repeatedly  calls  him 
the  Prince  of  this  world,  John  xii.  31  ;  xiv.  30  ;  xvi.  11.  What- 
ever was  his  right  or  title,  he  seems  at  that  time  to  have  had  pos- 
session of  the  world ;  and,  God  being  as  it  were  excluded,  the 
ordering  of  affairs  was  at  the  pleasure  of  demons."  The  philos- 
ophy of  Athenagoras,  it  appears,  had  survived  in  full  vigor  to 
the  eighteenth  century.  The  enors  of  the  ancient  fathers  and 
the  ancient  heretics,  which  were  adopted  for  the  purpose,  how- 
ever unskilfully  executed,  of  vindicating  the  goodness  of  God, 
and  which  were  countenanced  and  supported  by  the  philoso- 
phy of  the  age,  are  to  be  differently  regarded  from  the  cor- 
responding errors  of  later  times,  some  of  which  now  stand 
insulated  amid  the  intellectual  and  moral  improvement  of  the 
world. 


40  EVIDENCES  OF  THE 

evil  resident  in  matter,  as  the  adversary  of  the 
Creator  and  his  works. 

In  looking  to  a  very  different  part  of  the 
catholic  system  of  faith,  we  find  another  anal- 
ogy between  the  doctrine  of  the  Gnostics  and 
that  of  the  early  Christian  fathers,  which  is 
remarked  upon  by  Origen  himself.  Origen 
says,  that  the  distinction  made  by  the  heretics, 
in  affirming  that  the  Creator  is  just,  and  the 
Father  of  Christ  good,  may,  in  his  opinion, 
when  accurately  understood,  be  said  of  the 
Father  and  the  Son.  The  Son  is  just ;  he  has 
received  authority  to  judge  the  world  righteous- 
ly. Men  are  here  prepared  by  the  various 
discipline  which  he  appoints  in  justice  for  the 
time  when  he  will  deliver  up  his  kingdom, 
when  God,  being  all  in  all,  will  display  his 
goodness  toward  those  who  have  been  disci- 
plined by  his  Son ;  and  perhaps  all  things, 
Origen  adds,  may  be  thus  prepared  for  its 
reception.  Christ  himself  has  said  that  the 
Father  alone  is  good.  In  like  manner,  Ori- 
gen thinks  that  a  true  sense  may  be  given 
to  the  proposition,  that  there  is  one  superior 
to  the  Creator,  Christ  being  regarded  as  the 
Creator;    for  the  Father  is  greater    than  he.* 

*  Comment,  in  Joan.  Tom.  I.  i}  40.  0pp.  IV.  41. 


GENUINENESS  OF  THE  GOSPELS.  41 

All  those  Christians  of  the  first  three  centuries 
who  conceived  of  the  Logos  as  a  person  be- 
lieved like  the  Gnostics  in  a  Creator  of  the  uni- 
verse inferior  to  the  Supreme  Being  ;  for  they 
referred  its  creation  immediately  to  the  Logos. 
It  is  only  in  this  point,  however,  that  there  is 
any  analogy  between  the  Logos  of  the  ancient 
fathers  and  the  Creator  of  the  Gnostics.  In 
other  respects  the  Logos  corresponds  rather  to 
the  first  manifestation  or  development  of  the 
Deity  in  the  Gnostic  system  of  iEons. 

Thus,  on  every  side,  we  perceive  an  approxi- 
mation to  the  doctrine  of  the  Gnostics  respect- 
ing the  creation  and  government  of  the  world 
by  a  being  or  beings  inferior  to  the  Supreme. 
We  may  suppose  that  they  came  to  the  study 
of  Christianity  prepossessed  with  the  philosoph- 
ical doctrine,  that  human  affairs  were  under 
the  government  of  inferior  gods,  the  Supreme 
Divinity  being  far  removed  from  their  super- 
intendence. Looking  back  upon  the  state  of 
mankind,  they  saw,  on  the  one  hand,  that  the 
Father  of  All,  as  revealed  by  Christianity,  had 
been  an  unknown  God  to  the  Gentile  world. 
On  the  other  hand,  the  gross  and  limited  con- 
ceptions which  the  generality  of  the  Jews  en- 
tertained of  God,  under  the  name  of  Jehovah, 


42  EVIDENCES  OF  THE 

and  even  the  representations  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment concerning  him,  seemed  to  them  to  relate 
to  a  being  far  inferior  to  that  God  whom  Christ 
had  made  known.  They  were  thus  led  to  the 
conclusion,  that  the  Father  of  All  had  first  re- 
vealed himself  to  men  by  Christ,  and  through 
him  had  first  interposed  to  deliver  all  that  was 
spiritual  and  pure  in  the  universe  from  the  thral- 
dom of  matter.  Their  doctrine  might  seem 
to  them  but  little  more  than  the  declaration 
of  an  historical  fact,  that  the  true  God  was 
unknown  to  men  before  he  was  revealed  by 
Christ. 

In  almost  every  age,  wherever  the  belief  of 
one  Supreme  Being  has  been  received,  imper- 
fect notions  of  his  nature  and  moral  govern- 
ment, and  the  observation  of  the  defects,  ir- 
regularities, and  evils,  real  or  apparent,  which 
exist  in  the  present  state  of  things,  have  led 
to  conceptions  more  or  less  correspondent  to 
those  of  the  Gnostics.  Some  other  being  or 
beings  have  been  interposed  between  God  and 
his  creatures,  as  having  an  immediate  control 
over  the  physical  or  moral  world.  To  the 
causes  mentioned  we  may  refer  the  famous  doc- 
trine of  the  very  learned  Cudworth  concern- 
ing the  unconscious  soul  of  the  world.  Plastic 


GENUINENESS  OF  THE  GOSPELS.  43 

Nature,  as  he  denominates  it,  a  being  to  the 
immediate  agency  of  which  he  refers  all  phys- 
ical changes  ;  and  which  he  describes,  in  lan- 
guage not  altogether  intelligible,  as  "  a  crea- 
ture incorporeal,  though  low  and  imperfect," 
but  "  an  energetic  and  effectual  principle,  mov- 
ing matter  by  some  energy  of  its  own,"  "  act- 
ing for  ends  artificially,  yet  neither  intending 
those  ends,  nor  understanding  the  reason  of 
what  it  does,  and  therefore  unable  to  act  elect- 
ively,"  "  the  Divine  Art  concrete,  and  em- 
bodied in  matter,"  "  the  manuary  opificer  of 
the  Divine  understanding."  The  reasons  which 
Cudworth  assigns  for  introducing  this  agent 
might  have  been  adopted  with  little  variation 
by  the  Gnostics  in  defence  of  their  doctrine 
of  an  imperfect  Creator.  They  are,  because 
it  seems  "  not  decorous  in  respect  to  God,  nor 
agreeable  to  reason,  that  he  himself  should 
do  all  things  immediately  and  miraculously," 
for  this  "  would  render  Divine  Providence  op- 
erose,  sohcitous,  and  distractious " ;  because 
the  supposition  is  inconsistent  "  with  the  slow 
and  gradual  progress  of  things  in  nature "  ; 
whereas,  if  the  agent  were  omnipotent,  the  end 
proposed  would  be  effected  at  once,  without 
what  would  seem  "  this  vain  and  idle  pomp  "  ; 
and,  further,  because  the  supposition  is  incon- 


44  EVIDENCES  OF  THE 

sistent  "  with  those  errors  and  bungles  that 
are  committed,  when  the  matter  is  inept  and 
contumacious,  which  argue  the  agent  not  to 
be  irresistible."^ 

This  theory  was  not  only  maintained  by 
Cudworth,  but  countenanced  and  defended  as 
not  improbable  by  Le  Clerc,  a  man  extra- 
ordinarily free  from  mysticism  and  extrava- 
gance, whose  intellectual  vigor  has  preserved 
his  writings  to  our  own  time  in  almost  their 
original  freshness.  Even  at  the  present  day 
we  are  hardly  disembarrassed  from  the  con- 
ception of  Nature,  not  as  a  poetical  personifi- 
cation, but  as  a  real  agent ;  and  there  are  but 
few,  perhaps,  who  habitually  recognize  in  the 
operations  of  the  physical  world  only  an  unin- 
terrupted display  of  God's  power  in  imme- 
diate action.  We  are  hardly  yet  familiar  with 
the  belief,  that  it  is  God  alone  who 

"Warms  in  the  sun,  refreshes  in  the  breeze, 
Glows  in  the  stars,  and  blossoms  in  the  trees  ; 

Breathes  in  our  soul,  informs  our  mortal  part, 
As  full,  as  perfect,  in  a  hair  as  heart ; 
As  full,  as  perfect,  in  vile  man  that  mourns, 
As  the  rapt  seraph  that  adores  and  burns."  f 


*  Intellectual  System  of  the  Universe,  p.  150,  seqq. 

f  The  concluding    lines  are    to    be   understood    as   meaning 


V 

GENUINENESS  OF  THE  GOSPELS.  45 

It  may  readily  be  supposed  that  the  catholic 
Christians  found  no  difficulty  in  confuting  the 
theory  of  the  Gnostics  respecting  an  inferior 
Creator  or  Creators.  The  following  is  a  sum- 
mary of  the  reasoning  of  Irenaeus.  If  it  be 
said  that  the  world  was  made  either  by  an- 
gels or  by  any  inferior  being,  without  the  will 
of  God,  it  must  be  supposed  that  the  angels 
are  more  powerful  than  God,  or  that  he  is  in- 
different to  what  takes  place.  It  would  be 
idle  to  conceive  of  the  world  as  thus  formed 
within  his  realm,  where  he  is  present ;  and 
if  formed  without  it,  his  being  is  circumscribed 
and  he  ceases  to  be  infinite.  This  argument 
might  seem  trifling,  if  the  theosophic  Gnos- 
tics had  not  placed  the  material  world  with- 
out the  Pleroma,  the  complete  development 
of  God,  and  thus  afforded  sufficient  occasion 
for  it.  One  other  is  added  by  Irenaeus.  If 
the  world,  he  says,  exists  conformably  to  the 
will,  and  with  the  knowledge,  of  God,  he  is 
properly  its  maker,  whoever  might  be  the  im- 
mediate agents  in  its  formation.     Those  agents 


that  a  hair  and  a  heart,  a  man  and  an  angel,  are  all  equally 
produced  and  preserved  in  being  by  Divine  power,  by  power 
full  and  perfect ;  and  that  no  one  of  them  is  the  work  of  any 
agent  inferior  to  God. 


46  EVIDENCES  OF  THE 

derived  their  being  from  him,  and  are  to  be 
considered  only  as  instruments  in  his  hands.*  — 
The  very  obviousness  and  simplicity  of  these 
arguments  throw  light  on  the  state  of  opinion 
and  reasoning  to  which  men  had  advanced  in 
the  age  of  Irenseus. 

But  the  Gnostics,  on  the  other  hand,  were 
not  wanting  in  arguments  to  support  their 
doctrine  of  a  subordinate  Creator  and  an  Un- 
known God.  We  have  seen  how  correspond- 
ent this  doctrine  was  to  opinions  universally 
prevalent  both  among  Heathens  and  Chris- 
tians. The  Gnostics  conceived  that  the  his- 
tory of  the  world  made  it  evident  that  the 
True  God  had  been  unknown  to  men  till  he 
was  revealed  by  Christ.  They  dwelt  upon 
the  representations  of  the  Divinity  in  the  Old 
Testament,  to  prove  that  the  God  of  the  Jews 
could  not  be  the  True  God,  the  God  of  Chris- 
tians ;  while,  at  the  same  time,  admitting  the 
authority  of  the  Old  Testament,  they  recog- 
nized his  claim  to  be  the  Creator  of  the  ma- 
terial universe.  They  argued  from  the  im- 
perfections and  evils  of  the  world,  that  it 
could  not  be  the  work  of  a  good  and  omnip- 

*  Cont.  Hssres.  Lib.  II.  c.  2.  p.  117. 


GENUINENESS  OF  THE  GOSPELS.  47 

otent  Being,  but  bore  evident  marks  of  an 
imperfect  maker.  And  they  found,  as  they 
thought,  full  confirmation  of  their  doctrine  in 
the  words  of  Christ,  —  "  No  man  knoweth  the 
Father  but  the  Son,  and  he  to  whom  the  Son 
may  reveal  him."  These  words,  which  they 
often  quoted,  they  considered  as  affording  un- 
equivocal proof  that  Christ  came  to  reveal 
an  Unknown  God.*  They  alleged,  also,  other 
passages  to  the  same  effect.  Thus,  they  quot- 
ed what  is  said  by  John  in  his  Gospel,  "  No 
one  has  seen  God  at  any  time,"  as  proving 
that  the  God  revealed  by  Christ  was  not  the 
god  who  had  been  seen  by  Moses  and  the 
patriarchs.!  And  they  appealed  to  our  Lord's 
declaration  to  the  Jews,  "  Ye  know  neither 
me  nor  my  Father,"  as  evincing  that  the  god 
known  to  the  Jews  was  not  his  Father. J 

We  have  thus  attended  to  one  of  the  causes 


*  Among  the  many  passages  in  which  this  argument  of  the 
Gnostics  is  noticed,  it  may  be  sufficient  to  refer  to  Irenaeus, 
Cont.  Haeres.  Lib.  L  c.  20.  §  3.  p.  93.  Lib.  IV.  c.  6.  §  1. 
p.  233,  and  to  TertuUian,  Advers.  Marcionem,  Lib.  IV.  c.  25. 
p.  441. 

•j-  Origen.  De  Principiis,  Lib.  II.  c.  4.  §  3.  0pp.  I.  85. 

X  Origen.  Comment,  in  Joan.  Tom.  XIX.  0pp.  IV.  283. 


48  GENUINENESS  OF  THE  GOSPELS. 

which  the  Gnostics  assigned  for  the  evils  in 
the  world,  —  the  imperfection  of  its  immediate 
maker,  or  makers.  We  have  next  to  consider 
their  opinions  respecting  the  evil  nature  of 
matter. 


CHAPTER  VII. 

(continued.) 

ON    THE    SYSTEM     OF     THE    GNOSTICS,     AS     INTENDED     FOR     A 
SOLUTION    OF    THE    EXISTENCE    OF    EVIL    IN    THE    WORLD. 


Section  II. 
On  their  Opinions  concerning  Evil,  as  inherent  in  Matter. 

"  The  Marcionites  believe,"  says  Clement  of 
Alexandria,  "that  nature  is  bad,  as  proceed- 
ing from  evil  matter  and  a  just  Maker " ;  * 
that  is,  a  Maker  who  is  only  just.  Such  was 
the  belief  of  the  Gnostics  in  general.  But 
there  was  nothing  peculiar  to  them  in  their 
opinion  that  evil  inheres  in  matter,  nor  in  their 
application  of  this  doctrine  to  account  for  the 
evils  in  the  world.  The  theory  had  been  com- 
mon long  before  their  time.  It  was  connected 
with  the  general  doctrine  of  ancient  heathen 
philosophy  concerning  the  independent  existence 
of  matter. 


*  Stromat.  III.  §  3.  p.  515. 

7 


50  EVIDENCES  OF  THE 

Until  the  period  when  Christianity  taught 
men  to  form  a  new  idea  of  the  power  of  God, 
as  able  to  cause  that  to  be  which  did  not  be- 
fore exist,  matter  was  regarded  by  the  ancient 
philosophers  as  uncreated  and  eternal.  In  the 
view  of  Plato  it  was  not  the  product  of  di- 
vine power,  but  (to  use  the  language  of  Cud- 
worth)  the  inept  and  contumacious  material  on 
which  that  power  was  exercised.  In  his  di- 
alogue entitled  "  The  Statesman,"  there  is 
a  long  and  strange  passage  concerning  the  rev- 
olutions of  the  world,  caused  by  the  refractory 
tendencies  in  matter  during  intervals  in  which 
the  divine  power  that  controls  those  tenden- 
cies is  suspended.*  He  describes  the  world 
as,  after  one  of  these  revolutions,  fulfilling  its 
appointed  laws,  at  first  accurately,  but  after- 
ward more  dully  and  negligently.  "  And  the 
cause  of  this,"    he  says,   "  is    the    bodily    part 


*  Politicus,  p.  269,  seqq.  One  of  the  most  respectable  of  the 
German  writers  on  Plato,  Socher,  contends,  T  think  on  very  in- 
sufficient grounds,  that  this  Dialogue  is  not  the  work  of  Plato. 
(Ueber  Platen's  Schriften,  p.  273,  seqq.)  There  is,  however,  no 
dispute  that  the  Dialogue  is  of  the  age  of  Plato,  for  it  is  quoted 
by  Aristotle ;  nor  that  it  was  generally  reputed  to  be  his  work. 
The  question  of  its  genuineness,  therefore,  is  unimportant,  so  far 
as  it  is  adduced  only  to  show  the  antiquity  of  the  doctrine  of  evil 
in  matter,  and  that  this  doctrine  was  supported  by  the  authority 
of  Plato's  name. 


GENUINENESS  OF  THE  GOSPELS.  51 

of  its  composition,  inherent  of  old  in  its  nature ; 
for  this,  being  full  of  disorder  before  it  entered 
into  the  composition  of  the  world,  received  all 
that  it  has  good  from  him  who  compounded  it ; 
but  whatever  is  bad  and  wrong  in  the  universe 
proceeds  from  it,  and  is  produced  by  it  in  living 
beings,  in  consequence  of  its  former  tenden- 
cies." *  In  his  Timaeus  he  represents  God  as 
taking  matter,t  which  was  in  discordant  and 
disorderly  motion,  and  reducing  it  from  disorder 
to  order ;  "it  being  his  will  that  all  things 
should  be  good,  and,  as  far  as  might  be,  nothing 
bad  " ;  t  and  in  the  same  dialogue  he  presents 
the  conception  of  necessity,^  by  which  he  ap- 
parently intends  what  necessarily  exists  in  mat- 
ter, as  controlled  by  the  power  of  the  Deity.  || 
In  his  Laws,  the  work  of  his  old  age,  there  is 
a  remarkable  passage,  before  referred  to,1I  in 
which  he  teaches  that  there  are  at  least  two 
souls  (or  principles   of  motion)    pervading   the 


*  Politicus,  p.  273. 

f  "  Matter"  ;  the  expression  of  Plato  is  irdv  oaov  ^u  oparov, 
"  whatever  was  visible."  It  is  a  remarkable  fact,  forcibly  illus- 
trating the  state  of  philosophy  in  Plato's  time,  that  neither  the 
word  v\r]  in  the  sense  of  "  matter,"  nor  any  other  word  appropri- 
ate to  the  expression  of  that  idea,  occurs  in  his  writings.  —  See 
Additional  Note,  A. 

J  Timaeus,  p.  30.  §  'AvdyKt]. 

II  Timaeus,  pp.  48,  56.  1  See  before,  pp.  21,  22. 


52  EVIDENCES   OF   THE 

universe,  one  beneficent,  and  the  other  of  an 
opposite  character.*  There  is  here  no  direct 
mention  of  matter ;  but  the  passage  was  under- 
stood by  Plutarch,  and  by  others  of  the  later 
admirers  and  expositors  of  Plato,  as  referring  to 
a  soul  without  intellect,  resident  in  matter,  and 
producing  its  disorderly  motion  while  in  its  un- 
formed state.  This  Plutarch  regarded  as  the 
principle  of  evil  in  the  universe  ;  and  the  ex- 
istence of  some  such  principle,  he  says,  had 
been  affirmed  by  the  greater  part  of  preceding 
theologists  and  philosophers.! 

During  the  second  and  third  centuries,  the 
doctrine,  that  matter,  having  an  independent 
existence,  is  the  source  of  evil,  attracted  atten- 
tion among  Christians  ;  and  treatises  were 
written  in  opposition  to  it.  It  was  generally 
rejected  by  the  catholic  Christians,  who  be- 
lieved matter  to  have  been  created  by  God. 
It  was,  however,  maintained  by  Hermogenes, 
who  was  not  a  Gnostic,  and  against  whom 
Tertullian  wrote  a  treatise,  still  extant.  Ar- 
nobius,  likewise,  who  wrote  about  the  be- 
ginning of  the   fourth  century,   asks  the  ques- 

*  De  Legibus,  p.  896. 

•j-  The  passages  from  Plutarch  relating  to  this  subject  may  be 
found  collected  by  Cudworth  and  Mosheim  in  the  Systema  Intel- 
lectuale  a  Mosheim.  Tom.  I.  p.  299,  seqq. 


GENUINENESS  OF  THE  GOSPELS.  53 

tion,  —  "  What  if  primitive  matter  (prima  ma- 
teries),  which  has  been  disposed  into  the  four 
elements,  contain  the  causes  of  all  miseries  ?  "  * 
though  this  appears  not  to  have  been  his  own 
opinion. 

That  the  body  is  the  antagonist  principle  of 
evil  in  man  is  a  natural  branch  of  the  doctrine 
that  matter  is  the  antagonist  principle  of  evil  in 
the  universe.  But  the  former  opinion  subsisted 
unconnected  with  the  latter,  or  connected  but 
loosely  and  obscurely.  By  the  Gnostics  it  was 
adopted  in  its  whole  extent.  But  it  was  no 
novel  doctrine. 

Plato  taught,  as  we  have  already  seen,  that 
the  body  was  not  the  original  residence  of  the 
soul.f  Through  the  appointment  of  God,  or 
from  necessity,  or  in  consequence  of  its  own 
fault  or  its  intrinsic  weakness  (for  he  is  not 
consistent  with  himself  in  his  representations), 
it  had  been  removed,  or  had  fallen,  from  its  first 
estate,  and  become  immersed  and  entangled  in 
matter.J  The  philosophical  doctrine  of  the  im- 
mortality of  the  soul,  widely  different  from  the 
Christian,  was  connected  with  the  belief  of  its 
preexistence  either  through  the  past  duration  of 

*  Advers.  Gentes,  Lib.  L  p.  6.  Ed.  Thysii.    1651. 

t  See  before,  pp.  17,  18. 

I  Timaeus,  p.  41,  seqq.     Phaedrus,  p.  246,  seqq. 


54  EVIDENCES  OF  THE 

the  universe,  or  from  eternity,  and  of  its  having 
undergone  many  changes  of  being,  and  re- 
appeared on  earth  in  many  different  forms. 
According  to  Plato,  the  soul,  being  confined 
within  the  body,  is  in  consequence  subjected 
to  the  violent  affections  connected  with  the 
senses,  to  desire  mingled  with  pleasure  and 
pain,  and  to  fear  and  anger.  Its  perceptions 
are  darkened,  and  its  powers,  enthralled.  It 
is  surrounded  by  a  world  of  delusion ;  and  all 
its  true  knowledge  consists  in  the  reminiscences 
of  the  Ideas  with  which  it  was  conversant  in 
a  higher  state  of  existence,  reminiscences  awak- 
ened by  the  imperfect  resemblances  of  those 
Ideas  which  material  things  present.  Plato, 
accordingly,  describes  it  as  the  highest  purpose 
of  philosophy  to  loosen  the  connection  by 
which  the  soul  is  bound  and  agglutinated 
within  the  body,  to  withdraw  it  from  the 
senses,  except  so  far  as  we  are  by  necessity 
compelled  to  use  them,  to  enable  it  to  be 
alone,  collected  within  itself,  and  thus  to  free 
it,  as  far  as  possible,  from  pleasures  and  de- 
sires, and  sorrows  and  fears,  and  by  the  exer- 
cise of  all  virtue  to  prepare  it  for  a  return  to  the 
life  of  the  gods.* 


*  Timffius,  p.  42,  seqq.,  p.  69,     Phaedrus,  pp.  249,  250.     Phae- 
do,  p.  64,  seqq.,  p.  72,  seqq.,  p.  81,  seqq. 


GENUINENESS  OF  THE  GOSPELS.  55 

The  doctrine,  that  the  body  is  the  great 
source  of  moral  evil,  was  common  in  ancient 
times.  Philo,  the  Jewish  philosopher,  adopted 
on  this  subject  the  conceptions  and  language  of 
Plato.  He  speaks  of  the  body  as  a  corpse 
which  we  bear  about  with  us,  as  evil  by  nature 
and  laying  snares  for  the  soul,  as  a  sepulchre  in 
which  the  soul  is  entombed,  and  as  a  prison  full 
of  pollution,  from  which  it  must  free  itself. 
Every  virtue,  he  says,  loves  the  soul ;  every 
vice,  the  body  ;  what  is  in  friendship  with  one 
is  at  enmity  with  the  other.  Virtues  and  virtu- 
ous deeds  are  perfect  and  blameless  sacrifices 
which  the  body  abhors.* 

This  common  sentiment  of  antiquity  appears 
in  the  writings  of  St.  Paul.  "  I  know,"  he 
says,  "  that  in  me,  that  is,  in  my  flesh,  dwells 
nothing  good."t  He  regarded  those  as  left  to 
the  influences  of  the  flesh,  who  were  without 
the  spiritual  principle  to  be  derived  from  Chris- 
tianity. The  law  in  the  members,  says  the 
Apostle,  warring  against  the  law  of  the  mind, 
brings  men  into  subjection   to   the  law  of  sin 


*  Legum  Allegorife,  Lib.  IIL  0pp.  L  100,  101.  De  Creatione 
Principum,  U.  367.  De  Migratione  Abrahami,  L  437.  Quis  Re- 
rum  Divinarum  Haeres,  L  507.     De  Profugis,  L  548. 

f  Romans  vii.  18. 


56  EVIDENCES   OF   THE 

which  is  in  the  members.*  There  are  passages 
in  which  his  meaning  is  likely  to  be  misunder- 
stood, from  the  comparatively  limited  sense  in 
which  the  word  jiesh  has  been  metaphorically 
used  in  modern  times,  as  denoting  only  the 
irregular  appetites.  He,  on  the  other  hand, 
according  to  the  philosophy  of  his  age,  considers 
the  flesh  as  the  source  of  moral  evil  in  general. 
Thus  he  enumerates  among  the  works  of  the 
flesh,  "  idolatry,  magical  arts,  enmities,  quarrels, 
passion,  anger,  strife,  divisions,  parties,  hatred, 
murder."!  Those  who  have  become  Chris- 
tians, he  says,  have  "  put  off  this  body  of 
flesh."  % 

The  conceptions  which  were  thus  generally 
entertained  have  an  obvious  foundation  in  the 
nature  of  man.  The  appetites,  by  indulging 
in  which  the  soul  "  embodies  and  embrutes," 
are  to  be  referred  to  our  material  part.  The 
diseases  which  the  flesh  is  heir  to  disorder  the 
affections  and  temper,  fill  the  mind  with  phan- 
toms of  misery,  disturb  the  judgment,  and  some- 
times lay  waste  the  inteflect ;  and  in  our  best 


*  Romans  vii.  23.  f  Galatians  v.  20,  21. 

\  Colossians  ii.    11.  —  I  omit  twi/  &fiapTio>u  {of  the  5ms), with 
Griesbach  and  others. 


GENUINENESS   OF   THE   GOSPELS.  57 

estate,  "  the  corruptible  body  weighs  down  the 
soul,    and   the    earthly   tabernacle    burdens    the 
mind  full  of  many  thoughts."     Still,  the  body  is 
not  the  sepulchre,   but  the  cradle,  of  the  soul. 
It  is  a  necessary  condition  of  the  present  life, 
of    this    school   of    discipline    and    instruction 
which   Divine  Wisdom   has  prepared  for  us  at 
the  commencement  of  our  being,  and  in  which 
our  powers  of  action,  our  capacities  of  enjoy- 
ment, and  the  objects  around  us,  are  so  adjusted 
to  each  other  as  to  promote  the  moral  growth 
of  the  newly  formed  inhabitant  of  the  universe. 
In  a  philosophical  view,  the  body  is  not  a  clog 
upon  the  mind ;  it  may  rather  be  compared  to 
the  weight  which  gives  motion   to  a   piece   of 
machinery ;  for  its  wants  and  desires  are  what 
first   rouse    the   mind   to  action,   and   gradually 
bring  into  exercise  its  highest  powers  and  best 
affections.     If  we  cannot  call  the  appetites  the 
germ  of  our  virtues,  yet  they   may  almost  be 
considered  as  the  soil  in  which  our  virtues  take 
root.       From    them    spring   industry    and   fore- 
thought, which,  as  regards  the  greater  part  of 
men,  are  exercised  most  strenuously  in  supplying 
their  demands ;  and  they  call  into  exercise  self- 
control,  the  first  requisite  in  our  moral  discipline. 
The   relation   between   the   sexes    becomes    the 
source  of  the  most  disinterested  love,  and  of  all 

VOL.    IIJ.  8 


58  EVIDENCES   OF  THE 

the  domestic  charities.  And  it  is  in  witnessing 
the  bodily  wants  and  sufferings  of  our  fellow- 
creatures  that  compassion  and  benevolence  are 
first  awakened. 

It  is  remarkable  that  the  conception  of  the 
evil  nature  of  the  body,  though  recommended 
by  such  authority,  and  though  it  subsequently 
had  an  essential  influence  in  strengthening  the 
ascetic  system  of  morality  among  Christians, 
does  not  appear  to  have  found  much  favor  with 
the  early  fathers,  any  more  than  the  doctrine  of 
an  evil  principle  in  matter.  Even  Clement  of 
Alexandria,  whom  we  should  suppose  likely,  as 
much  as  any  one,  to  have  been  influenced  by 
the  Platonic  philosophy,  expressly  contends  that 
"  neither  the  soul  is  good,  nor  the  body  bad,  by 
nature."  * 

The  Gnostics,  adopting  the  common  doctrine 
of  their  age  concerning  the  evil  nature  of  the 
body,  were  further  distinguished  from  the  cath- 
olic Christians  by  some  of  the  inferences  which 
they  drew  from  it.  A  portion  of  them  made  it 
a  ground  for  strict   asceticism    and   abstinence 


*  Stromat.  Lib.  IV.  ^  26.  p.  639.     Conf.  Lib.  III.  ^  11.  p.  545. 
^  16.  p.  559. 


GENUINENESS  OF  THE  GOSPELS.  59 

from  all  the  pleasures  of  sense.  Some,  on  the 
other  hand,  conformably  to  what  has  been  be- 
fore stated,*  are  said  to  have  found  in  it  a 
license  for  criminal  indulgence.  They  pre- 
tended that  the  vile  body  was  so  apart  from 
the  spirit,  that  the  latter  could  not  be  contami- 
nated by  the  affections  of  the  former.  With 
many  Gnostics  it  was  probably  not  more  opera- 
tive in  its  practical  influence,  than  with  the 
majority  of  other  individuals  by  whom  it  was 
held.  But  it  led  them  generally  to  the  belief 
that  Christ  had  not  a  proper  human  body  of 
flesh  and  blood.  It  also  caused  them  to  deny 
"  the  resurrection  of  the  body."  The  question 
concerning  this  subject  was  one  of  those  most 
strongly  contested  between  the  Gnostics  and 
the  catholic  Christians,  however  uninteresting 
the  debate  may  appear  to  a  philosopher  of  the 
present  day. 

In  connection  with  the  notions  of  the  Gnos- 
tics concerning  the  causes  of  evil,  it  remains  to 
speak  of  their  opinions  relating  to  the  Devil. 
But  our  direct  and  credible  information  on  this 
subject  is  scanty.  The  conception  of  him  as  a 
personal  agent  does  not  appear  to  have  been 

*  See  Vol.  II.  pp.  126,  127  ;  p.  130,  seqq. 


60  EVIDENCES  OF  THE 

essential  to  their  system.  The  notices  still 
remaining  which  they  themselves  gave  of  their 
opinions  are  inconsistent  with  the  representa- 
tions of  the  fathers.  A  comparison  of  them 
together  may  serve  to  show  with  what  distrust 
we  should  regard  the  accounts  of  the  fathers, 
even  those  of  the  best  authority,  when  they  are 
not  dwelt  upon  and  explained  at  length,  or 
confirmed  by  their  intrinsic  probability,  or  by 
their  consistency  with  what  is  known  of  the 
system  of  the  Gnostics,  or  by  collateral  evi- 
dence. It  thus  illustrates  the  impracticability, 
which  for  the  most  part  exists,  of  pursuing  our 
inquiries  respecting  the  doctrines  of  the  Gnos- 
tics upon  any  safe  grounds,  when  those  inquiries 
extend  beyond  the  great,  characteristic  features 
of  their  belief. 

Ireneeus,  in  his  account  of  the  Ptolemaeo- 
Valentinian  theory,*  says,  that,  according  to 
Ptolemy,  the  Devil  was  formed  by  the  Crea- 
tor, that  he  was  called  Cosmocrator,  or  the 
Ruler  of  the  World,  having  his  seat  in  this 
lower  world,  and  that,  being  the  Spirit  of  Evil 
(that  is,  his  nature  being  spiritual),  he  knew 
the  things  above  him  (he  was  aware  of  the 
existence  of  the  spiritual  world,  the  Pleroma)  ; 

*  See  Vol.  II.  p.  89. 


GENUINENESS   OF  THE   GOSPELS.  61 

but  that  the  Creator,  not  being  spiritual,  did 
not  know  of  their  existence.*  In  this  account 
Irenaeus  is  followed  by  Tertullian  f  and  other 
later  writers. 

But  the  account  is  irreconcilable  with  that 
which  Ptolemy  himself  gives  of  his  opinions  in 
his  Letter  to  Flora.  He  there  says  :  —  "  There 
is  one  unorifijinated  Father,  from  whom  prop- 
erly all  things  are  ;  for  the  chain  of  being  de- 
pends   from    him The    essence   of    the 

Adversary  is  destruction  and  darkness  ;  for  he 
is  material  and  multiplex.  But  the  essence  of 
the  unoriginated  Father  of  All  is  incorruption, 
and  light  itself  pure  and  uniform.  The  essence 
of  these  two  produced  a  certain  twofold  power 
[the  Creator].!  But  he  is  the  image  of  the 
Better." 

Here  we  find  the  Devil,  or  the  principle  of 
evil  in  the  universe,  described,  not  as  spiritual 
(conformably  to  the  account  of  Irenaeus),  but  as 
material,  and  not  as  produced  by  the  Creator 
(a  statement  in  itself  sufficiently  improbable), 
but  as  in  some  way  contributing  to  his  produc- 
tion ;  —  the  idea  of  Ptolemy,  I  conceive,  being. 


*  Cont.  Hasres.  Lib.  L  c.  5.  §  4.  p.  26. 

f  Adversus  Valentinianos,  c.  22.  p.  259. 

4    'H  Se  TovTcov  ovcria  btTTrjv  fxeu  Tiva  Svvafxiv  Trporjyayev. 


62  EVIDENCES  OF  THE 

that  matter  entered  into  the  composition  of  the 
Creator.  Ptolemy  goes  on  to  exhort  Flora 
not  to  be  troubled  by  the  question,  How,  when 
there  is  one  good  Being,  the  principle  of  all 
things,  whose  nature  it  is  to  make  all  things 
like  himself,  these  two  other  powers  should 
exist,  one  whose  essence  is  destruction,  and 
the  other  possessing  a  middle  nature.  But, 
unfortunately,  we  have  not  his  answer  to  this 
question.  He  promises  to  give,  at  some  future 
time,  a  solution  of  it,  grounded  on  the  apos- 
tolic tradition  which  had  come  down  to  the 
Gnostics,  and  confirmed  throughout  by  the  teach- 
ing of  the  Saviour.* 

From  this  passage  we  may  judge  that  Ptol- 
emy, adopting  the  conception  of  Plato,  Plu- 
tarch, and  other  philosophers,  respecting  the 
material  soul,  or  the  animate  principle  of  evil 
in  matter,  which  is  at  war  with  order  and  sta- 
bility, regarded  this  principle  as  the  Adversary, 
the  Devil.  Such,  from  all  that  we  can  learn 
concerning  the  subject,  appears  to  have  been 
the  doctrine  of  the  Valentinians.  They  divided 
men  into  three  classes,  —  the  spiritual,  the  ani- 
mal and  rational,!  and  the  earthy.  The  last, 
according  to  Heracleon,  were  of  the  same  sub- 

*  Epist.  ad  Floram,  p.  361.  f  Ol  ylrvxixoi. 


GENUINENESS   OF  THE  GOSPELS.  63 

Stance  with  the  Devil ;  whom  he  was  so  far 
from  considering  as  spiritual,  that  he  denied 
him  the  power  of  will,  saying  that  he  had  only 
desires.*  The  same  notion  of  the  materiality 
of  the  Devil  appears  in  the  Doctrina  Orien- 
talis.f  And,  what  is  remarkable,  Irenaeus  is 
as  inconsistent  with  himself  as  with  the  Gnos- 
tic writers  who  have  been  quoted.  For,  im- 
mediately before  the  passage  that  has  been 
adduced  from  him,  he  says  that  the  Valen- 
tinians  taught  that  the  Devil  and  the  evil  de- 
mons had  their  origin  from  a  substance  which, 
according  to  his  own  account,  the  Valentinians 
considered  as  one  form  of  matter. J 

It  is  probable  that  what  thus  appears  to 
have  been  the  doctrine  of  the  Valentinians, 
namely,  that  the  Devil  was  the  animate  prin- 
ciple of  evil  in  matter,  was  also  the  doctrine 
of  the  Basilidians  and  the  Marcionites.  Of 
Marcion  Tertullian  says,   that,   "  imputing  un- 


*  Apud  Origen.  Comment,  in  Joan.  XX.  ^  20.  0pp.  TV. 
337-339. 

f  Doctrina  Orientalis,  §  48.  §§  52,  53.  ^  34.  Conf.  Irenaeus, 
Lib.  I.  c.  6.  §  L  p.  28. 

J  'Ek  Se  rris  Xv7rr;s  —  Trjv  yevecnu  itxxqKtvai.  Lib.  I.  C.  5.  ^  4. 
p.  26.  For  the  meaning  of  ck  rrjs  Xvirrjs  see  what  immediately 
precedes  in  the  same  section,  p.  25,  and  Irenseus's  whole  account 
of  the  notions  of  the  Valentinians  concerning  the  formation  of 
matter  in  the  fourth  and  fifth  chapters  of  his  first  Book. 


64  EVIDENCES   OF   THE 

originated,  unmade,  eternal  evil  to  unorigi- 
nated,  unmade,  eternal  matter,  he  has  thus 
made  a  god  of  evil."  *  The  only  question 
in  regard  to  him  or  Basilides  is.  Whether  they 
ascribed  a  personal,  or  an  animate,  existence  to 
the  principle  of  evil.  This  question,  as  far  as 
regards  Marcion,  would  be  determined  in  the 
affirmative,  if  we  could  trust  to  the  accounts 
of  the  writers  of  the  fourth  and  fifth  centuries. 

What  is  certain  in  regard  to  the  Gnostics  in 
general  is,  that  they  regarded  the  principle  of 
evil,  whether  animate  or  inanimate,  as  inherent 
in  matter.  They  unquestionably  did  not  agree 
with  the  catholic  Christians  in  supposing  that 
Satan  and  his  angels  had  been  created  by  the 
Supreme  God  as  good  angels,  and  had  fallen 
through  their  own  wickedness  from  their  high 
estate  ;  —  a  conception  with  which  we  are  fa- 
miliar through  the  mythology  of  Milton.  Their 
doctrine,  as  we  have  no  reason  to  doubt,  cor- 
responded more  nearly  with  the  original  Per- 
sian doctrine, ,  which  had  passed,  as  we  have 
seen,  into  the  philosophy  of  their  times.  They 
believed  the  antagonist  principle  in  the  uni- 
verse to  have  been  by  nature  bad  and  resident 
in    matter.     In    this  respect    they  were   nearly 

*  Advers.  Marcion.  Lib.  I.  c.  15.  p.  373. 


GENUINENESS  OF  THE  GOSPELS.  65 

allied  to  the  Manichaeans.  But  it  is  to  be 
added,  that  the  Valentinians,  at  least,  do  not 
appear,  like  the  Manichaeans,  to  have  consid- 
ered this  principle  as  having  always  existed 
in  primitive  matter ;  but  to  have  regarded  it 
as  assuming  being  and  life  when  primitive 
matter  was  endued  with  its  various  forms  at 
the  creation. 

In  concluding  this  subject  of  the  opinions  of 
the  Gnostics  concerning  the  immediate  causes 
of  evil  in  this  world,  it  may  be  remarked,  that, 
in  proportion  as  Christianity  afforded  a  more 
definite  idea  of  a  benevolent  author  of  all  things, 
the  question  of  the  origin  of  evil  assumed  new 
interest.  It  being  conceded  that  the  only 
infinite  Power  in  the  universe  is  purely  benefi- 
cent, the  problem.  Why  does  evil  exist  ?  at  once 
presented  itself.  The  thoughts  of  men  were 
directed  to  the  subject ;  and  the  imperfect  so- 
lution of  the  Gnostics  was  but  one  among  those 
which  were  formed.  The  catholic  Christians, 
generally,  did  not  speculate  so  much  concern- 
ing it  as  the  heretics,  nor  were  they  agreed 
in  their  theories.  But  in  the  writings  of  the 
more  philosophical  of  their  number,  in  those 
of  Clement  and  Origen,  for  example,  we  find 
some  just  and  noble  views.     They  taught  that 


66  GENUINENESS  OF  THE  GOSPELS. 

moral  evil  was  the  necessary  result  of  that  free- 
dom of  agency  in  created  beings,  without  which 
they  could  not  be  subjects  of  praise  or  blame  ; 
and  that  the  evils,  so  called,  proceeding  from 
God,  were  disciplinary  and  corrective,  the  ad- 
monitions and  chastisements  of  a  father,  the 
remedies  of  a  physician. 

The  generality  of  the  Gnostics  adopted  the 
principles  that  have  been  explained.  But 
concerning  the  immersion  of  spirit  in  matter 
the  theosophic  Gnostics  pursued  their  theory 
still  farther  into  the  region  of  the  Pleroma,  and 
found  its  occasion  in  disorders  which  there  took 
place.  But  their  views  on  this  subject  were 
connected  with  their  whole  system  of  theo- 
sophic speculations,  and  to  these  we  will  next 
attend. 


CHAPTER  VIII. 


ON     THE     PECULIAR     SPECULATIONS     OF     THE     THEOSOPHIC 
GNOSTICS. 


Section  I. 

Introductory   Remarks  on  the   Character  of  Ancient 
Philosophy. 

I  FEEL  a  reluctance  to  proceed  at  once  to 
an  account  of  the  more  imaginative  part  of  the 
speculations  of  the  Gnostics  without  some  words 
of  preparation.  It  would  be  doing  them  injustice 
to  give  a  naked  statement  of  their  belief,  if  we 
may  call  it  by  so  grave  a  name,  without  any  ex- 
planation of  the  general  character  of  the  philos- 
ophy of  that  period  in  which  it  had  its  origin. 
A  stranger  from  a  foreign  land,  of  which  the 
manners  and  customs  are  altogether  different 
from  those  of  the  country  he  is  visiting,  if 
brought  among  individuals  unprepared  for  the 
peculiarities  of  his  dress  and  behaviour,  would 
not  be  more  unfairly  estimated,  or  exposed  to 
more  unfounded  ridicule,  than  a  speculatist  of 
ancient  times,  whose  opinions  should   at  once 


68  EVIDENCES   OF  THE 

be  confronted  with  the  conceptions  of  the  pres- 
ent day.  It  should  be  understood,  also,  that  a 
modern  language  is  often  but  an  imperfect  in- 
strument for  expressing  the  opinions  of  an 
ancient  theorist.  What  is  true  of  poetry  is  true 
also  of  the  speculations  of  the  ancients.  The 
plausibility  of  the  latter,  like  the  beauty  of  the 
former,  not  unfrequently  depends  on  a  nice 
adaptation  of  words,  callida  verborum  junctura, 
which  can  hardly  be  imitated  in  translation,  and 
disappears  in  an  abstract.  It  is  often  the  case, 
that  modern  terms  do  not  sufficiently  correspond 
with  those  of  an  ancient  language  to  admit  of 
their  being  fitted  together  in  the  same  manner. 
Having,  then,  formerly  remarked  the  disadvan- 
tage to  which  the  Gnostics  are  exposed  from 
the  circumstance  that  our  accounts  of  them 
are  derived  principally  from  their  opponents,* 
we  will  now  attend  to  the  other  obstacles 
which  lie  in  the  way  of  a  correct  apprehension 
and  a  just  estimate  of  their  more  mystical 
doctrines,  arising  from  the  general  character  of 
ancient  philosophy,  and  the  difficulties  attending 
its  study. 

The   books  of  ancient   philosophers   are   left 

*  See  Vol.  11.  p.  34,  seqq. 


GENUINENESS  OF  THE  GOSPELS.  69 

US.  The  dead  letter  still  remains  ;  but  it  is  not 
easy  to  reanimate  it  with  their  thoughts.  The 
same  words  are  now  printed  which  were  origi- 
inally  written ;  but  of  the  ideas  which  these 
words  expressed,  many  have  been  essentially 
modified,  or  have  become  wholly  obsolete. 
What  was  once  a  vivid  conception  can  now  be 
contemplated  but  dimly  and  imperfectly.  What 
once  was  linked  with  a  system  of  opinions,  and 
recalled  many  associations,  now  finds  nothing 
with  which  to  connect  itself  in  our  minds.  Our 
sphere  of  knowledge  is  greatly  enlarged ;  a 
much  stronger  light  falls  upon  it ;  delusions 
have  disappeared  ;  many  objects,  which  were 
partially  seen  and  misapprehended,  are  now 
clearly  discerned,  and  many  present  themselves 
under  new  aspects  and  relations.  We  may 
translate  into  our  own  language  the  words  used 
by  ancient  philosophers ;  but  our  modern  terms 
are  often  far  from  suggesting  to  our  minds  the 
conceptions  which  those  words  once  conveyed. 
In  the  progress  of  time,  many  ideas  have  been 
decomposed,  and  many  have  entered  into  new 
combinations,  forming  new  aggregates.  Every 
thing  changeable  in  our  minds,  all  but  the 
essential  principles  of  human  nature,  has  been 
more  or  less  chano;ed.  To  find  in  an  ancient 
author  a  strain  of  sentiment  with    which    our 


70  EVIDENCES  OF  THE 

own  feelings  fully  accord,  a  series  of  thoughts 
which  appears  to  us  altogether  true,  or  rea- 
soning which  brings  conviction  to  our  own 
minds,  is  like  hearing  our  native  tongue  in  a 
strange  land. 

The  speculations  of  the  ancients  were  seldom 
such  as,  being  addressed  to  the  common  reason 
of  men    and    founded    in   universal    truth,    and 
therefore  expressed  in  its  ever  intelligible  lan- 
guage,   require,    throughout    all    ages,    only   a 
similar   apprehension   of  truth    in   order   to   be 
understood.      The    difference    between    the   in- 
tellectual  character  of  men  in   ancient  and  in 
modern  times  may  be  felt  at  once  ;   but  long- 
continued  attention  is  required  to  comprehend, 
as   far   as   may   be,   the    extent  and  nature  of 
the    particulars   which   it   embraces.      We    are 
continually  liable   to   be   deceived   by  apparent 
correspondences    of    language ;    and    as    great 
mistakes   are    in  consequence    sometimes    com- 
mitted   in    the    study   of    their    philosophy,    as 
if,    on   account   of  the    identity   of    name,    we 
were  to  imagine  that  the  consuls  of  Rome  re- 
sembled in  power  and  office  the  consuls  of  mod- 
ern commercial  nations. 

Language  is  a  full  and  ready  means  of  com- 
munication only  between  those  whose  minds 
have    been    formed    under    similar    influences, 


GENUINENESS  OF  THE  GOSPELS.  71 

whose  ideas  have  been  moulded  after  the  same 
fashion,  and  whose  associations  run  in  similar 
channels.  Such  correspondence  of  thought  and 
feeling  is  required,  not  merely  that  the  terms 
used  may  be  understood  in  the  same  sense,  but 
also  that  the  mind  of  the  reader  may  be  able 
to  furnish  at  once  those  connecting  and  acces- 
sory ideas,  that  perpetual  commentary  on  the 
words  employed,  which  is  necessary  to  supply 
the  many  breaks  and  deficiencies  of  expression 
that  have  their  origin  in  the  unavoidable  imper- 
fection of  language.  In  order  to  receive  from 
the  words  of  an  ancient  writer  the  meaning 
and  impression  which  they  were  once  adapt- 
ed to  convey,  we  must  often  arrange  our 
thoughts  in  new  combinations,  form  new  con- 
ceptions, and  refashion  others,  regard  subjects 
under  an  aspect  foreign  from  that  to  which  we 
are  accustomed,  and  restore  associations  that  have 
long  been  obsolete.  We  must  forget  our  present 
knowledge  and  belief;  and  place  ourselves  in 
the  midst  of  the  imperfect  information  and  the 
erroneous  views  by  which  he  was  surrounded. 
If  this  be  not  done,  we  may  substitute  for  his 
speculations  an  incongruous  sort  of  modern- 
antique  doctrine ;  and  may  praise  or  censure 
him,  equally  without  reason,  for  the  supposititious 
opinions  we  have  ascribed  to  him.     Two  writ- 


72  EVIDENCES  OF  THE 

ers  of  opposite  belief  may  each  fancy  that  he 
finds  his  own  philosophy  in  an  ancient  author, 
and  both  may  be  equally  in  error,  for  both  may 
have  committed  the  anachronism  of  supposing 
him  to  have  reference  to  conceptions  which 
did  not  exist  till  long  after  his  day.  Some 
modern  accounts  of  ancient  doctrines  resem- 
ble the  descriptions  that  have  been  given,  or 
have  been  feigned  to  be  given,  of  European 
manners  and  customs  by  natives  of  the  East. 
They  are  travellers'  wonders.  We  may  find 
in  them  verbal  truth  and  essential  error.  The 
ideas  of  the  ancient  writer  may  be  so  disguised 
as  hardly  to  be  recognized,  by  being  divested 
of  their  native  dress,  clothed  in  new  words, 
and  presented  apart  from  all  their  usual  as- 
sociations. We  find  partial  views,  misappre- 
hensions, an  inability  to  estimate  what  is  per- 
ceived according  to  its  relative  importance,  and, 
in  consequence  of  all,  false  inferences,  which, 
if  the  expositor  have  a  theory  to  maintain,  or 
fancy  that  he  has  a  talent  for  disquisition, 
spread  their  cloudy  or  dazzling  discoloration 
over  the  whole  subject. 

In  studying  the  speculations  of  the  ancients, 
we  are,  then,  as  far  as  possible,  to  keep  their 
conceptions  steadily  before  our  minds,  to  refer 


GENUINENESS   OF  THE   GOSPELS.  73 

their   language    directly   to  those    conceptions, 
and  not  to  interpret  it  to  ourselves  through  ^he 
ill-adapted  medium  of  modern  opinions  and  a 
modern  tongue.     But  the  earnest  and  unrelaxed 
attention   which  is   thus   required   is,   in   itself, 
not    altogether    favorable    to    our    attaining   a 
right  apprehension  of  the  subject  of  our  study. 
This  arises  from  the  character  of  ancient  phi- 
losophy.    The  difficulty  of  the  task  leads  us  to 
examine   too  closely  and   intently  theories  not 
of  a  nature  to   be    submitted    to   such   critical 
scrutiny.     We  fix  our  eyes  too   steadily  upon 
speculations    adapted   only   for   a   general    and 
cursory  view.     We    expect   from  the  author  a 
grave  feeling  of  the  responsibility  of  the  dis- 
cussion,   corresponding   to   the    gravity   of    the 
task  imposed  upon  ourselves ;  and  we  are  like- 
ly to  become  far  more  earnest  than  he  was  to 
determine  precisely  his  meaning,  and  reconcile 
his  opinions,  and,  perhaps,  his  metaphors,  with 
each  other. 

Reasoning  upon  the  higher  and  more  im- 
portant subjects  of  thought  was  a  far  less 
serious  thing  with  the  ancient  heathen  phi- 
losophers than  it  is  at  the  present  day.  The 
whole  region  of  knowledge  that  lies  beyond 
the  sphere  of  the  senses  was  involved  in  obscu- 

VOL.    III.  10 


^4  EVIDENCES   OF  THE 

rity  and  doubt.  No  great  truths  generally  ac- 
knowledged served  as  landmarks  to  guide  the 
explorer.  The  higher  philosophy,  therefore,  of 
the  ancient  heathens,  comprehending  all  that 
relates  to  their  theology,  consisted,  in  great  part, 
of  conjectures  and  doubtful  hypotheses.  Una- 
ble to  find  arguments  to  satisfy  the  understand- 
ing, they  addressed  themselves  to  the  imagina- 
tion. Proof  of  any  theory  could  not  be  fur- 
nished. Uncertainty  was  on  every  side.  The 
voice  of  Revelation  was  as  yet  unheard  ;  and 
the  assurance  which  we  derive  from  it  of  the 
fundamental  truths  of  religion  was  unknown. 
In  this  absence  of  any  decided  belief,  men  were 
neither  accustomed  to  reason  strictly  themselves, 
nor  to  demand  strict  reasoning  from  others. 
What  was  plausible  passed  current,  and  became 
a  substitute  for  truth. 

In  the  famous  dialogue  in  which  Plato  gives 
an  account  of  the  creation  and  constitution  of 
the  universe,  he  represents  Timaeus,  to  whom 
he  assigns  the  explanation  of  those  subjects,  as 
thus  speaking  :  —  "  Since  much  has  been  said 
by  many  concerning  the  gods  and  the  production 
of  the  universe,  you  will  not  wonder  if  my 
account  of  these  things  should  not  be  fitted  in 
all  respects  to  bear  the  strictest  examination, 
and  command  universal  assent.     But,  if  I  pro- 


GENUINENESS  OF  THE  GOSPELS.  75 

duce  one  not  less  probable  than  any  other,  it  is 
to  be  received  with  favor  ;  for  you  must  remem- 
ber that  he  who  speaks  and  you  who  judge 
are  but  men  ;  so  that  if  you  receive  from  me  a 
probable  mythos,  it  will  be  well  to  seek  no 
farther."*  A  probable  mythos,  or,  in  other 
words,  an  imaginary  representation,  supposed  to 
have  a  semblance  of  the  truth,  was  often  all 
that  was  aimed  at  by  the  ancients  in  similar 
speculations.  As  such  only,  some  of  the  more 
sober  Gnostics  may  have  regarded  their  theories 
concerning  the  spiritual  world.  It  might  be 
well,  perhaps,  especially  in  treating  of  the  spec- 
ulations of  the  ancients,  to  adopt  the  term  my- 
thos into  our  own  language  in  one  of  its  ancient 
senses,  as  denoting  an  imaginary  account  of 
unknown  things  or  events,  not  supposed  to  be 
true  in  its  details,  but  intended  to  affect  the 
mind  in  the  same  manner  as  the  truth.f  In 
modern  philosophy  this  kind  of  writing  is  not 
common  ;  but  there  is  an  example  of  it  by  the 
celebrated    author   of  "  The    Light  of  Nature 


*  Timaeus,  p.  29. 

t  The  modernized  term  myth  (English),  or  mythe  (French  and 
German),  has  been  lately  introduced;  but  it  has  been  used  so 
vaguely  as  to  be  rather  a  disadvantage  than  a  gain,  as  regards  pre- 
cision of  language. 


76  EVIDENCES  OF  THE 

Pursued,"   in  "  The  Vision,"  in  which   he  de- 
scribes the  future  life. 

The  art  of  reasoning,  more  slow  in  its  prog- 
ress than  any  other,  was  very  imperfectly  un- 
derstood by  the  ancients.  In  every  branch  of 
philosophy,  not  less  than  in  the  physical  sci- 
ences, they  committed  the  mistake  of  founding 
their  hypotheses  on  preconceptions  and  not  on 
facts.  As  regards  the  physical  sciences,  their 
imaginary  and  false  speculations  are  now  only 
a  matter  of  history.  But  they  were  far  more 
exposed  to  error  in  treating  of  objects  beyond 
the  sphere  of  the  senses,  than  in  explaining 
the  phenomena  of  the  material  world.  When, 
with  our  very  different  and  more  correct  modes 
of  thinking,  we  now  study  their  theories,  it 
is  like  freely  examining  in  the  daytime  a  spec- 
tacle adapted  to  be  viewed  only  at  a  distance 
by  artificial  light.  To  explain  the  appearan- 
ces observed  by  them,  instead  of  investigat- 
ing the  laws  of  matter  and  mind,  and  the  re- 
lations of  existing  things  to  each  other,  they 
passed  beyond  the  bounds  of  human  knowl- 
edge, and  supposed  the  operation  of  agen- 
cies, beings,  and  qualities,  of  the  existence 
of  which  no  proof  had  been  or  could  be  pro- 
duced. 


GENUINENESS  OF  THE  GOSPELS.  77 

Thus,  to  explain  the  origin  of  the  world, 
the  Epicureans  fancied  an  infinity  of  atoms 
for  ever  falling  through  void  space,  with  a 
slight  inclination   towards  each  other,   and   for 


'h 


ever  forming  numberless  combinations,  of  which 
this  universe  was  one.  To  account  for  the 
changes  in  the  qualities  of  material  objects, 
Plato  taught,  that,  from  eternity,  these  qual- 
ities had  possessed  existence  as  Ideas^  and  that 
they  sometimes  were  connected  with  and  some- 
times separated  from  the  same  portion  of  prim- 
itive matter  ;  the  disappearance  of  one  Idea, 
or  quality,  being  followed  by  the  access  of 
another.  The  existence  of  evil  was,  as  we 
have  seen,  explained  by  the  supposition  of  an 
evil  nature  inherent  in  eternal,  uncreated  mat- 
ter, the  necessary  substratum  of  the  visible 
universe.  In  the  common  intercourse  of  life 
every  one  may  meet  with  undisciplined  think- 
ers, of  active  minds,  who  are  accustomed  to 
frame  theories  after  the  same  fashion.  As  I 
have  said,  their  defect  is,  that  they  assume 
the  operation  of  causes,  or  laws,  of  the  ex- 
istence of  which  there  is  neither  proof  nor 
probability ;  and  it  may  be  added,  that  this 
assumption  is  often  connected  with  mistakes 
in  regard  to  the  character  of  the  phenomena 
to  be  explained. 


78  EVIDENCES  OF  THE 

Even  in  modern  times  this  sort  of  reasoning, 
after  having  been  partially,  at  least,  driven  from 
the  physical  sciences,  has  maintained  its  ground 
in  the  higher  departments  of  philosophy.  We 
have  examples  of  it  in  the  monads  and  pre'cs- 
tahlished  harmony  of  Leibnitz  ;  in  the  neces- 
sary scale  of  being  from  Infinite  to  man,  from 
man  to  nothing,  which  Bolingbroke  imposed  on 
the  good  sense  of  Pope  ;  in  Hartley's  theory  of 
vibrations,  and  the  conversion  of  vibratiundes 
into  complex  and  abstract  ideas  ;  in  Priestley's 
doctrine  of  the  materiality  of  the  soul,  con- 
nected by  him  w^ith  the  position  that  matter 
has  no  other  properties  than  those  of  attraction, 
repulsion,  and  extension ;  in  the  speculations 
of  Darwin  in  his  Zoonomia ;  and  throughout 
the  writings  of  the  modern  German  metaphy- 
sicians. 

When  such  conjectural  hypotheses  find  fa- 
vor, they  will  be  multiplied  abundantly ;  for 
they  are  of  easy  construction.  They  require 
no  patient  investigation  of  facts,  no  analysis 
nor  induction.  Nor,  as  they  involve  conceptions 
beyond  the  sphere  of  experience,  do  they  admit 
of  those  precise  definitions  of  thought  which 
are  incompatible  with  error,  and  which  only  a 
superior  intellect  can  combine  into  new  forms 


GENUINENESS  OF  THE  GOSPELS.  79 

of  truth.  The  theorist  passes  at  once  from  the 
world  of  reality  into  the  world  of  imagination, 
the  transcendental  world,  where  he  may  fab- 
ricate and  put  together  his  materials  at  pleas- 
ure. Whatever  phenomena  present  themselves, 
if  he  have  sufficient  ingenuity,  he  needs  to  be 
at  no  loss  for  an  explanation.  As  in  the  Ptol- 
emaic system  of  the  world,  with  its  Gentries 
and  exeentries,  cyeles  and  epieyeles,  orb  in  orb, 
he  may  by  new  additions  always  contrive  to 
keep  his  hypothesis  in  repair,  till  it  falls  to 
pieces  at  the  shock  of  truth.  We  are  apt,  in- 
deed, through  a  natural  mistake,  to  infer  from 
the  difficulty  that  we  may  find  in  understand- 
ing such  speculations  that  they  are  difficult  of 
fabrication.  If  we  suffer  ourselves  to  be  de- 
ceived by  the  pretensions  of  a  writer,  we  may 
fancy  that  he  thinks  profoundly,  when  he  is  only 
so  indistinct,  confused,  and  illogical,  that  we 
cannot  fathom  his  meaning.  But  truth  is  al- 
ways clear.  Good  sense  is  always  intelligible. 
Obscurity  is  the  birthplace  and  the  lurking- 
hole  of  error.  We  can  make  no  progress  in 
the  investigation  of  truth,  if  our  ideas  are  vague 
and  unformed.  We  might  as  well  attempt  to 
determine  the  phenomena  of  the  heavenly  bod- 
ies by  observations  taken  in  a  mist.  The  first 
requisite  in  a  philosopher  is,  that  he  apprehend 


80  EVIDENCES  OF  THE 

his  own  meaning ;  and  if  he  do  so,  he  can 
hardly  fail  to  make  his  meaning  understood. 
Other  things  being  equal,  a  writer  deserves  to 
be  read  in  proportion  as  he  is  intelligible  ;  that 
is,  in  proportion  as  his  ideas  are  definite,  clear, 
and  rightly  disposed  in  their  relations  to  each 
other. 

If  obscurity  were  an  indication  of  wisdom, 
the  theosophic  Gnostics  might  be  reckoned 
among  the  wisest  of  thinkers.  We  need  not 
doubt,  however,  that  there  were  many  among 
them  who  fancied  that  they  understood  the 
speculations  of  their  school.  They  whose  minds 
are  confused,  and  who  are  unaccustomed  to 
look  for  a  precise  meaning  in  words,  often  read- 
ily believe  that  they  comprehend  what  is  unin- 
telligible. Wanting  sagacity  to  discern  the  in- 
definiteness  or  the  inconsistency  of  ideas,  they 
are  satisfied  with  words  that  present  a  sem- 
blance of  meaning.  At  the  same  time,  as  was 
the  case  with  the  Gnostics,  their  vanity  may  be 
flattered  by  the  thought  that  they  can  under- 
stand what  wiser  men  cannot ;  and  they  may, 
in  consequence,  admire  the  writer  who  affords 
them  this  gratification.  In  the  incantations  of 
former  times,  barbarous  and  unmeaning  words 
were  used  to  compel  the  spirits  evoked ;  and  the 
history  of  our  race,  and  our  own  observation. 


GENUINENESS  OF  THE  GOSPELS.  81 

may  attest  the  magical  power  of  nonsense  over 
the  spirits  of  men. 

In  proportion  as  we  think  inaccurately  and 
reason  illogically,  in  proportion  as  we  neglect 
to  define  our  conceptions,  and  trace  out  their 
relations,  and  discover  their  mutual  bearings, 
so  will  our  notions  both  concerning  diflerent 
subjects,  and  concerning  the  same  subject  as 
viewed  in  various  connections,  be  irreconcilable 
with  one  another.  It  is,  I  conceive,  impossible, 
and  if  possible,  it  must  be  the  labor  of  severe 
and  long-continued  thought,  to  detect  all  the 
inconsistencies  of  our  ideas,  and  reduce  all  our 
opinions  to  a  uniform  system  of  belief.  It  is 
a  task  which  the  ancient  philosophers  did  not 
attempt  to  perform.  Their  metaphysical  specu- 
lations had  more  alliance  with  poetry  than  with 
reasoning.  Often  the  conceptions  presented  by 
them  were  adapted  to  the  purpose  in  view,  with 
little  regard  to  those  which  they  might  else- 
where express.  Hence  much  unprofitable  labor 
has  been  spent  in  endeavouring  to  bend  their 
language  to  such  a  meaning,  that  the  different 
doctrines  of  the  same  individual,  or  the  same 
sect,  may  not  appear  altogether  incongruous 
with  one  another.  Some  of  their  modern  ex- 
positors  have    been   far    more    concerned    than 

VOL.   III.  11 


82  EVIDENCES  OF  THE 

they  were,  to  render  their  philosophy  consis- 
tent with  itself.  When  such  an  account  is 
given  of  the  general  system  of  opinions  of  an 
ancient  theorist,  as  puts  them  in  competition 
with  those  of  a  true  philosopher  ;  or  when  such 
an  account  is  given,  that  we  do  not  at  once 
perceive  great  oversights  and  deficiencies,  this 
very  circumstance  affords  reason  to  distrust  its 
correctness.  There  is  ground  to  suspect  that 
the  doctrines  of  the  ancient  theorist  have  been 
refashioned  by  his  modern  expositor.  It  is  often 
much  easier  to  fabricate  a  scheme  of  opinions 
to  which  the  language  of  an  ancient  writer  ap- 
proximates, or  to  which  many  of  his  expres- 
sions may  be  conformed,  —  an  imaginary  theory, 
which  he  did  not  hold,  but  which,  if  he  had 
thought  consistently,  he  might  perhaps  have 
held,  —  than  to  determine  and  explain  the  real 
state  of  his  conceptions  at  different  times,  and 
the  varying  senses  of  the  same  words  as  em- 
ployed by  him  in  different  connections. 

Truth,  in  respect  to  the  higher  objects  of 
thought,  was  of  much  less  importance  in  ancient 
times  than  in  our  own.  It  was  of  less  impor- 
tance, because,  even  if  attained,  it  could  have 
little  influence  on  the  generality  of  men.  The 
free  use  of  books  being  confined  to  compara- 


GENUINENESS   OF  THE  GOSPELS.  83 

lively  a  very  small  number,  and  all  other  means 
of  communicating  the  opinions  and  sentiments 
of  enlightened  men  being  scanty  and  imperfect, 
it  could  not  be  widely  promulgated ;  and  so  far 
as  it  was  promulgated,  it  must  appeal  to  argu- 
ments that  but  few  would  understand,  and  urge 
considerations  that  but  few  would  feel.  The 
express  authority  of  revelation  alone  affords  a 
firm  and  sufiticient  basis  for  those  truths  which 
most  concern  human  happiness  and  virtue.  The 
most  excellent  speculations  of  ancient  philoso- 
phers, though  they  tended  without  doubt  to  give 
a  higher  elevation  to  a  few  superior  minds,  — 
who,  through  a  very  natural,  but  very  great  mis- 
take, may  now  appear  to  us  as  the  representa- 
tives of  the  ancient  world,  —  yet  affected  in  no 
considerable  degree  the  moral  condition  of  the 
generality  of  men.  Truth,  therefore,  being  pur- 
sued with  little  view  to  any  practical  result,  was 
not  sought  for  intently,  nor  with  strong  interest. 
No  ancient  philosopher  appears  to  have  thought 
more  like  a  wise  and  good  man  of  modern  times 
than  Cicero ;  and  in  some  of  his  writings  there 
is  a  moral  grandeur  and  power  that  no  modern 
eloquence  has  surpassed.  In  his  work  "  Con- 
cerning the  Nature  of  the  Gods,"  "  that  most 
difficult,"  he  says,  "and  most  obscure  question," 
he   begins  with    stating  its   importance  in    the 


84  EVIDENCES  OF  THE 

Strong  language  of  a  religious  philosopher. 
"  Were  piety  toward  the  gods  done  away,  I 
do  not  know,"  he  says,  "  but  that  mutual  trust, 
and  all  that  binds  men  together  in  society,  and 
that  regard  to  the  rights  of  others,  which  stands 
alone  as  the  most  excellent  of  virtues,  would 
also  come  to  an  end."  Yet  he  concludes  this 
work  with  stating,  in  the  person  of  Cotta,  the 
objections  to  any  divine  providence,  urged  by 
the  disciples  of  the  New  Academy,  and  leaves 
them  not  merely  unanswered,  but  without  at- 
tempting to  weaken  their  force,  except  by  a 
declaration  that  he  thought  the  opposite  opinion 
more  probable.  They  were  such  objections,  we 
may  suppose,  as  had  pressed  upon  his  own  mind, 
though  without  overthrowing  his  religious  faith ; 
and  such  a  statement  of  them,  even  coming 
from  him,  was  not  likely,  as  he  knew,  to  produce 
any  perceptible  effect  on  the  popular  belief. 

The  loose  reasoning  of  the  ancients  pro- 
ceeded in  great  part  from  the  want  of  clear 
conceptions ;  and  consequently  the  signification 
of  the  language  employed  in  it  was  fluctuating 
and  indeterminate.  Many  of  the  principal 
terms  in  ancient  philosophy  have  but  a  dim 
and  uncertain  meaning.  The  conception  meant 
to  be  expressed  by  a  particular  name  embraces 


GENUINENESS   OF   THE  GOSPELS.  85 

perhaps  incongruous  ideas,  of  which  the  atten- 
tion, as  it  is  differently  directed,  is  now  fixed 
upon  one,  and  then  upon  another.  As  in  the 
mechanical  arts,  the  tools  of  the  workman  be- 
come more  finished,  and  are  better  adapted  to 
their  purpose,  in  proportion  to  the  progress  of 
those  arts,  so  it  is,  in  the  art  of  reasoning,  with 
words,  the  tools  of  the  logician.  They  become 
more  clear  and  definite  in  their  signification  as 
men  think  and  reason  more  distinctly  and  accu- 
rately. But  in  proportion  as  any  period,  or  any 
school,  is  characterized  by  loose  reasoning  and 
cloudy  and  uncertain  language,  we  may  expect 
to  find  it  distinguished  also  by  the  number  of 
its  philosophical  theories,  and  the  fancied  subtil- 
ty  and  sublimity  of  its  speculations.  The  fog 
that  is  spread  around  changes  the  appearance  of 
familiar  objects;  it  magnifies  their  forms,  and 
blends  with  them  its  own  unsubstantial  shapes. 
The  whole  aspect  of  nature  is  different  from 
that  presented  in  a  clear  light;  and  he  who 
describes,  as  really  existing,  what  he  has  fancied 
himself  to  behold  under  this  delusion,  may  be 
uninteUigible  to  one  who  sees  things  as  they  are. 
In  some  of  the  works  of  the  mystical  metaphy- 
sicians of  the  present  day,  we  may  find  as  strik- 
ing examples  as  any  which  antiquity  affords,  of 
general   terms,  floating  loosely  through  a  wide 


86  EVIDENCES  OF  THE 

sphere  of  meaning,  and  incapable  of  being  fixed 
in  any  definite  sense ;  of  language,  deprived  of 
all  real  import,  and  presenting  only  spectral  and 
unformed  conceptions ;  and  of  new  and  bar- 
barous words,  the  signification  of  which  has 
neither  been  settled  by  usage,  that  best  definer 
of  language,  nor  analyzed  and  explained  by  the 
inventor. 

There  is  still  another  consideration  to  be 
attended  to  concerning  the  speculations  of  the 
ancient  philosophers.  When  men's  ideas  are 
unformed  and  their  language  indefinite,  those 
who  attempt  to  speculate  necessarily  speculate 
obscurely.  Having  but  a  partial  and  unsteady 
view  of  the  objects  to  which  their  attention  is 
directed,  they  express  themselves  with  an  in- 
distinctness that  may  conceal  error;  in  figurative 
language,  between  which  and  what  is  literally 
intended  more  or  less  correspondence  may  be 
supposed  ;  or  with  a  wide  generality  of  phrase 
that  leaves  their  meaning  indeterminate,  —  a 
matter  of  controversy,  to  be  settled  according 
to  the  different  judgments  of  their  disciples. 
Hence  the  sayings  of  those  who  were,  or  who 
were  reputed,  wise,  in  the  earlier  stages  of 
intellectual  cultivation,  acquired  the  name  of 
"  dark  sayings  "  ;  and  enigmatic  language,  and 


GENUINENESS  OF  THE  GOSPELS.  87 

imperfect  modes  of  expression,  by  which  noth- 
ing was  clearly  explained,  came  to  be  consid- 
ered as  the  appropriate  dialect  of  philosophy. 
Thus  a  great  fault  was  regarded  as  a  badge  of 
intellectual  eminence.  Obscurity  was  thought 
to  be  characteristic  of  profoundness.  The  inca- 
pacity which  could  not  attain  to  clear  ideas 
wrapped  itself  in  dark  robes,  and  spoke  oracles 
in  paradoxes  and  ambiguous  language. 

The  causes  which  produced  this  state  of 
things  have  continued  to  operate,  more  or  less, 
through  the  whole  progress  of  philosophy.  The 
alchemists  and  astrologers  of  former  times  used 
a  peculiar  gergo,  or  cant  language,  intelligible 
only  to  themselves ;  and  other  professors  of 
false  philosophy  have,  like  them,  sought  to  dis- 
tinguish themselves  from  the  generality  by  pe- 
culiar modes  of  speech,  and  the  misuse  of  lan- 
guage. During  the  age  of  the  Gnostics,  those 
conceptions  which  have  led  to  the  affectation 
of  obscurity  were  in  full  strength.  We  find 
them  expressed  and  defended  by  Clement  of 
Alexandria ;  and  a  few  sentences  from  that 
eminent  father  may  cast  some  further  light  on 
the  subject. 

"  All  those,"  he  says,  "  who  have  theologized, 
both  Barbarians  and  Greeks,  have  concealed 
the    principles   of  things ;    and    have   delivered 


88  EVIDENCES  OF  THE 

the  truth  in  enigmas  and  symbols,  in  allego- 
ries and  metaphors,  and  in  such  modes  of  ex- 
pression." * 

Elsewhere  he  gives  the  reasons  for  adopting 
this  style  of  teaching. 

"  Life  would  fail  me,  should  1  undertake  to 
enumerate  all  those  who  have  philosophized 
symbolically,  for  the  sake  of  assisting  the  mem- 
ory by  brevity,  and  in  order  to  excite  attention 

to   the    truth All    truths   shown    under 

a  veil  appear  greater  and  more  venerable  ; 
beautiful,  like  fruits  seen  through  water,  or 
forms  that  discover  their  lineaments  under 
drapery.  For  a  blaze  of  light  shows  defects. 
Besides,  what  is  plainly  seen  can  be  understood 
but  in  one  sense  ;  but  truths  should  admit  of 
diverse  acceptations,  as  they  do  when  expressed 
obscurely.  When  they  are  so  expressed,  the 
unskilled  and  ignorant  man  falls  into  error,  but 
the  enlightened  manf  comprehends  them.  The 
wise  have  not  been  willing  that  all  things  should 
be  free  to  all ;  nor  that  the  treasures  of  wisdom 
should  be  communicated  to  those  who  have  not 
even  dreamed  of  purifying  their  souls.  For  it  is 
not  right  to  bestow  on  every  one  what  has  been 


*  Stromat.  V.  §  4.  p.  658. 

t  'O  yvaxTTiKos,  "  The  Gnostic."     See  Vol.  II.  p.  10. 


GENUINENESS  OF  THE  GOSPELS.  89 

acquired  with  so  much  labor,  nor  to  expound 
the  mysteries  of  the  Logos  [of  Wisdom]  to  the 
profane.  It  is  related  that  Hipparchus,  the 
Pythagorean,  being  charged  with  explaining 
clearly  in  his  writings  the  doctrines  of  Pythag- 
oras, was  expelled  from  the  school,  and  that  a 
monumental  pillar  was  erected  to  him  as  if  he 
had  been  dead."  * 

Clement  has  much  more  to  the  same  effect 
in  the  fifth  book  of  his  Stromata.f  In  support 
of  his  doctrine  he  refers  to  many  real  or  sup- 
posed examples  and  authorities.  Clement  him- 
self, however,  is  not  distinguished,  as  a  writer, 
for  studied  obscurity,  nor  did  his  doctrine  pre- 
vail among  catholic  Christians.  But,  in  the 
passages  quoted  from  him,  he  is  to  be  consid- 
ered as  the  representative  of  a  class,  and  as 
expressing  opinions  common  in  his  age. 

In  treating  of  this  subject  in  the  fifth  book 
of  his  Stromata,  it  seems  evident  that  the 
hidden  wisdom  which  he  principally  had  in 
mind  consisted  in  speculations  relating  to  the 
nature  of  the  Divinity,  "  the  sacred  mystic 
doctrine,"  as  he  expresses  it,  "  concerning  the 


*  Stromat.  V.  §  9.  pp.  679,  680. 
t  Pp.  656-694. 

VOL.   III.  12 


90  EVIDENCES  OF  THE 

Unoriginated  and  his  Powers."  *  It  was  the 
subject  about  which  the  theosophic  Gnostics 
especially  exercised  their  imaginations.  Clem- 
ent introduces  the  ancient  doctrine  respecting 
obscurity  in  various  other  places,  and  particu- 
larly dwells  upon  it  again  in  the  sixth  book 
of  his  Stromata.t  Elsewhere,  after  maintain- 
ing a  common  notion  of  the  fathers,  that  the 
heathen  philosophers  borrowed  much  from  the 
Jewish  Scriptures,  he  represents  them  as  imi- 
tating from  those  Scriptures  "  the  hidden  char- 
acter of  the  barbaric  [the  Jewish]  philosophy, 
its  symbolical  and  enigmatical  form,  which  is 
most  useful,  or  rather  most  necessary,  to  a 
knowledge  of  the  truth."  | 

It  is  easy  to  understand  what  must  have  been 
the  consequences  of  such  an  opinion  of  the 
excellence  of  obscurity.  He  who  does  not 
study  clearness  in  the  use  of  words  cannot 
think  clearly ;  for,  as  regards  all  abstract  sub- 
jects, words  are  not  merely  the  means  by  which 
we  express  ourselves,  they  are  also  the  means 
by  which  we  think.  We  can  no  more  reason 
on  such  subjects  with  a  confused  notion  of  their 

*  Stromat.  V.  p.  694.     Conf.  pp.  685,  686  ;  689,  690  ;  692, 
seqq.     Stromat.  VII.  p.  838. 
t  Pp.  798-817. 
%  Stromat.  V.  ^  1.  p.  429. 


GENUINENESS  OF  THE  GOSPELS.  91 

significance,  than  we  can  pursue  an  investiga- 
tion in  the  higher  branches  of  mathematics  with 
a  confused  notion  of  the  significance  of  the 
symbols  to  be  employed.  But  when  obscurity 
becomes  a  subject  of  praise,  or  when  the  great 
mistake  is  made  of  supposing  it  not  to  be  the 
natural  result  of  incapacity,  but  to  be  in  some 
way  connected  with  superiority  of  mind,  there 
will  be  many  pretended  teachers  of  wisdom, 
who  will  pour  forth  their  imperfect  and  inco- 
herent ideas,  leaving  it  to  their  admirers  to  find 
or  to  imagine  a  meaning. 

The  preceding  remarks  may  prepare  us  for 
the  speculations  of  the  theosophic  Gnostics  con- 
cerning the  origin  of  spiritual  beings,  and  of 
the  material  universe.  But  a  single  example 
from  an  ancient  writer  will  serve  to  illustrate 
what  has  been  said,  and  to  give  a  more  distinct 
view  of  ancient  philosophy.  I  will  produce 
one  from  Plato,  "  that  wisest  man  of  Greece," 
says  Cicero,  "  far  excelling  all  others  in  knowl- 
edge." It  is  the  account  which  he  gives  in  his 
Timaeus  of  the  formation  of  the  Soul  of  the 
Universe ;  *  a  famous  passage,  about  which  much 
was  written  in  ancient  times.     The  subject,  it 

*  Timseus,  pp.  35,  36. 


92  EVIDENCES  OF  THE 

will  be  perceived,  has  an  analogy  to  that  of  the 
speculations  of  the  Gnostics. 

"  The  Divinity,"  says  Plato,  "  compounded 
the  Soul  of  the  Universe  of  the  following  ma- 
terials in  the  following  manner.  Of  that  sub- 
stance which  is  undivided  and  always  the  same 
[the  substance  of  things  intelligible  *],  and  of 
that  which  becomes  divided  in  the  formation 
of  bodies  [^primitive  matter  f]?  he  compounded 
a  third  kind  of  substance  [matter  indued  with 
qualities  {],  intermediate  between  both,  par- 
taking of  the  nature  both  of  the  Uniform  and 
the  Different ;  §    and  accordingly   placed   it   in 


*  "  Of  things  intelligible  "  ;  that  is,  of  such  as  can  be  discern- 
ed by  the  intellect  alone  ;  the  opposite  of  things  sensible.  Vid. 
Timaeus,  pp.  27-29  ;  p.  48  ;  pp.  51,  52.  Phajdo,  p.  78,  seqq. 
Sophista,  p.  248.     Politicus,  p.  269. 

f  "  Primitive  laaiteT  "  ;  that  is,  matter  supposed  to  exist  with- 
out qualities,  as  the  mere  substratum  or  recipient  of  qualities. 
Vid.  Timaeus,  pp.  48-51.     See  Additional  Note,  A. 

J  What  is  meant  by  the  third  kind  of  substance  is  to  be  in- 
ferred from  a  doctrine  fundamental  in  Plato's  philosophy,  that 
the  union  of  things  intelligible,  that  is,  of  Ideas,  with  primitive 
matter  produces  the  forms  of  matter  perceptible  by  the  senses. 
It  is,  perhaps,  hardly  necessary  to  observe,  that  the  word  "  sub- 
stance "  {ovaia)  as  used  above  must  be  taken  in  its  widest  accep- 
tation, as  denoting  "  whatever  exists,  not  as  the  accident  of  any 
thing  else." 

^  Trjs  re  ravTov  (pvatais  ai)  nepl  Koi  ttjs  Barepov,  "  of  the  nature 
both  of  the  Uniform  and  the  DiJJ'ereni.''-     The  words  ravro  and 


GENUINENESS  OF  THE  GOSPELS.  93 

the  midst,  between  that  which  is  without  parts 
and  that  which  is  divided  in  bodies.  Then 
taking  these  three,  he  mingled  them  together, 
so  that  the  whole  had  one  new  form ;  forcing 
the  nature  of  the  Different,  which  was  hard  to 
be  blended,  into  connection  with  the  Uniform, 
and  mixing  them  with  the  third  kind  of  sub- 
stance,* so  as  of  the  three  to  form  one.     Then 


Sdrepov  have  commonly  been  rendered  Idem  and  Diversum,  "  the 
Same  "  and  "  the  Diverse  "  or  "  Different  "  ;  but  this  rendering 
conveys  no  clear  ideas.  It  is  evident  that  by  those  terms  are  re- 
spectively meant  the  two  substances  first  mentioned  ;  but  I  think 
no  satisfactory  explanation  has  been  given,  either  in  ancient  or 
modern  times,  of  the  sense  in  which  they  are  applied  to  those 
substances.  But  by  "  the  substance  which  is  always  the  same  " 
(a  description  which,  with  a  little  variation  of  phrase,  repeatedly 
occurs  in  Plato,  as  in  "  The  Sophist,"  p.  248,  and  "  The  States- 
man," p.  269)  is  evidently  meant  by  him  the  substance  which  is 
always  the  same  with  itself,  that  is,  which  is  always  "  uniform." 
By  dare  pop  may,  then,  be  meant  the  substance  which  is  "  different " 
from  that  which  is  always  uniform,  or  "  the  other  "  of  the  only 
two  original  kinds  of  substance.  However  this  may  be,  the 
names  I  have  used,  "  the  Uniform  "  and  "  the  Different,"  suffi- 
ciently express  the  nature  of  the  substances  intended.  Plato, 
here  as  elsewhere,  evidently  affects  obscurity.  —  I  do  not  perceive 
that  any  light  is  thrown  on  his  use  of  the  terms  in  this  passage  by 
his  discussion  in  "  The  Sophist  "  (p.  254,  seqq.)  concerning  ^'t6 
T€  TavTov  Koi  Barepov,^''  the  terms  being  there  used  to  denote  "  the 
Same  "  and  "  the  Different,"  considered  as  two  of  the  most  uni- 
versal Ideas.  If  I  mistake  not,  a  comparison  of  the  use  of  the 
terms  in  the  passage  just  referred  to  with  their  use  in  the  Ti- 
maeus  only  serves  to  show  the  confusion  that  existed  in  the  philo- 
sophical conceptions  and  language  of  Plato. 

*  "  Mixing  them  with  the  third  kind  of  substance  "  ;  verbally, 


94  EVIDENCES   OF  THE 

he  divided  the  whole  into  as  many  portions  as 
were  proper,  each  portion  being  a  mixture 
of  the  Uniform,  the  Different,  and  the  third 
kind  of  substance.  He  began  to  divide  thus  : 
he  took  first  one  portion  from  the  whole ; 
afterwards  he  took  the  double  of  the  same ; 
next  a  third,  sesquialter  of  the  second  and 
triple  of  the  first ;  a  fourth,  the  double  of  the 
second  ;  a  fifth,  the  triple  of  the  third  ;  a  sixth, 
eight  times  the  first ;  and  a  seventh,  twenty- 
seven  times  the  first.*  Afterwards  he  filled 
up  the  double  and  triple  intervals,  still  taking 
portions  from  the  same,  and  placing  them  in 
those  intervals,  so  that  in  each  interval  there 
should  be  two  means  ;  the  one  mean  exceed- 
ing one  of  its  extremes  by  a  certain  part  of 
that  extreme,  and  exceeded  by  the  other  by  the 
same  part  of  this  other  ;  the  other  mean  ex- 
ceeding one  extreme  and  exceeded  by  the  other 
by  the  same   number.f     Thus   sesquialter,  ses- 


"  mixing  them  with  the  substance  "  ;  fiiyvvs  8e  /xera  Trjs  ovarias. 
By  f)  ovaia,  as  here  used,  there  can  be  no  question  that  the  third 
kind  of  substance  is  meant ;  though,  as  two  other  kinds  of  sub- 
stance had  been  mentioned  before,  the  use  of  the  article  without 
any  more  definite  reference  produces  a  verbal  ambiguity. 

*  These  portions  correspond  to  the  following  numbers  :  — 
1.     2.     3.     4.     9.     8.     27. 

I  The  first  proportion  mentioned  is  what  is  called  harmonic. 
It  appears,  for  example,  in  the  numbers,  6.  8.   12  ;  as  8  exceeds 


GENUINENESS  OF  THE  GOSPELS.  95 

quitertian,  and  sesquioctave  intervals  *  being 
produced  by  these  connecting  links  between  the 
intervals  first  mentioned,  he  filled  up  all  the 
sesquitertian  intervals  with  intervals  of  a  sesqui- 
octave ;  leaving  a  portion  of  each  sesquitertian 


6  by  one  third  of  6,  and  12  exceeds  8  by  one  third  of  12.  The 
second  proportion,  it  will  be  perceived,  is  arithmetical.  The  in- 
tervals to  be  filled  correspond  to  those  of  the  numbers  mentioned 
in  the  last  note.  The  double  intervals  are  those  in  the  series, 
1.  2.  4.  8.  The  triple  are  those  in  the  series,  1.  3.  9.  27.  By 
supplying  means  in  harmonic  proportion  for  the  double  intervals 
we  have  the  series, 

1.     n.     2.     2f.     4.     51     8. 
The  arithmetical  means  of  the  double  intervals  will  be  as  fol- 
lows :  — 

1.     U.     2.     3.     4.     6.     8. 
The  harmonic  means  of  the  triple  intervals  will  stand  thus  :  — 

1.     li.     3.     4^.     9.     13^.     27. 
The  arithmetical,  thus  :  — 

1.     2.     3.     6.     9.     18.     27. 
Then  inserting  both  the  harmonic  and  arithmetical  means,  the 
series  of  double  intervals  will  be  thus  supplied  :  — 

1.     1^.     If     2.     2§.     3.     4.     5^.     6.     8. 
The  series  of  triple  intervals,  thus  :  — 

1.  1^.  2.  3.  4J-.  6.  9.  ISh  18.  27. 
*  "  Sesquialter  "  denotes  the  ratio  of  Ig-  to  1.  A  sesquialter 
interval  is  one  of  which  the  greater  extreme  exceeds  the  less  in 
this  ratio.  By  "  sesquitertian  "  is  here  meant  the  ratio  of  1^ 
to  1  ;  and  by  "  sesquioctave  "  that  of  1^  to  1.  The  use  of  the 
terms  "  sesquitertian  "  and  "  sesquioctave  "  in  these  senses  is 
borrowed  from  the  use  of  the  corresponding  Latin  terms  by  Cic- 
ero in  his  translation  of  the  passage  of  Plato,  which  is  to  be  found 
among  his  Fragments. 


96  EVIDENCES  OF  THE 

bounded    by  limits  which   have   to  each   other 
the   relation   of    the    numbers   256    and   243.* 


*  The  sesquitertian  intervals  are  those  in  the  two  series  last 
given  which  intervene  between  the  following  numbers  :  — 

1  and  li.     1^  and  2.     2  and  2§.   3  and  4.    4  and  5^. 
4J-  and  6.     6  and  8.     13|-  and  18. 
These  are  severally  to  be  supplied  with  sesquioctave  intervals, 
thus  :  — 

1.  U.    lu-    H-  ih    m-    HM-    2. 

2.  2i.    2^.     2|.  3         31.      3|i.       4. 
and  so  on. 

But  when  the  sesquitertian  intervals  are  thus  filled,  a  portion  of 
each  is  left  between  the  last  sesquioctave  and  the  greater  extreme, 
and  the  greater  extreme  has  to  the  sesquioctave  the  ratio  of  256 
to  243.     Thus  1^  is  to  1^|  as  256  to  243. 

What,  then,  was  the  purpose  of  Plato  in  giving  all  these  num- 
bers and  proportions  ?     The  answer  is,  that  these  numbers,  thus 
proportioned  to  each  other,  are  expressive  of  musical  intervals,  or, 
in  other  words,  they  are  what  are  called  musical  numbers.     This 
will  appear  clearly  by  multiplying  them  severally  by  768,  so  as  to 
avoid  the  fractions,  as  in  the  following  table  :  — 
1 
768 
2 
1536 
and  so  on. 

The  numbers  produced  by  this  multiplication  may  be  found  in 
the  Table  of  Musical  Numbers  in  Rees's  Cyclopaedia  (Article 
Music),  as  far  as  to  2048  ;  and  the  higher  numbers,  and  those  to 
be  produced  by  a  further  multiplication,  may  be  obtained  by  the 
rule  there  given. 

It  was  reported  of  Pythagoras,  many  centuries  after  his  death, 
that  he  first  discovered  the  ratios  of  the  musical  intervals,  in  his 
investigations  respecting  the  sounds  produced  by  the  heavenly 


H 

864 

Hi 
972 

1024 

H 
1152 

111       1115 

1296   1458 

2i 

728 

2^ 
1944 

2| 
2048 

3 
2304 

31    3U    4. 
2592  2916  3072. 

GENUINENESS   OF  THE  GOSPELS.  97 

Thus  the  mixture  from  which  he  divided  these 
portions  was  wholly  used  up.     Then  cutting  the 

bodies  in  their  motions.  According  to  Macrobius  (In  Somnium 
Scipionis,  Lib.  II.  c.  1),  he  found  that  no  musical  notes  were  in 
concord,  unless  the  higher  had  to  the  lower  one  of  the  following 
ratios  :  sesquitertian,  sesquialter,  double,  triple,  quadruple,  and 
sesquioctave.  These,  with  the  ratio  of  243  to  256,  are  the  rela- 
tions between  the  numbers  of  Plato. 

The  ratio  of  243  to  256  expresses  that  of  the  ancient  musical 
limma,  of  which  Macrobius  (ubi  supra)  says,  —  "The  ancients 
have  named  a  sound  minor  than  a  tone,  a  semitone  ;  which,  it  is 
found,  differs  as  little  from  a  tone  as  the  numbers  243  and  256  from 
each  other This  Plato  calls  a  limma.'''' 

The  conception,  then,  which  is  the  nucleus  of  Plato's  whole 
system  of  numbers,  is  simply,  that  the  soul  of  the  universe  was 
formed  according  to  the  laws  of  harmony.  This  is  the  solution 
of  his  riddle.  He  might  have  acknowledged  Dryden  as  his  ex- 
positor :  — 

"  From  harmony,  from  heavenly  harmony, 
This  universal  frame  began  ; 
From  harmony  to  harmony. 
Through  all  the  compass  of  the  notes,  it  ran." 

"  More  obscure  than  the  numbers  of  Plato,"  or  "  More  obscure 
than  the  Timaeus  of  Plato,"  (the  true  reading  is  doubtful,)  is  an 
expression  of  Cicero  in  one  of  his  letters  to  Atticus.  Tennemann, 
however,  says,  in  his  "  System  of  the  Platonic  Philosophy  "  (in 
German,  Vol.  III.  p.  179,  note),  that,  "however  obscure  and  enig- 
matic these  Platonic  numbers  have  been  represented  in  ancient 
and  modern  times,  yet  in  reality  they  are  not  so.  Through  an 
accurate  acquaintance  with  the  theory  of  the  Pythagoreans  con- 
cerning numbers,  and  the  astronomical  knowledge  of  the  times  of 
Plato,  they  might  be  explained,  if  it  were  worth  the  trouble." 
The  remark  is  characteristic. 

It  is  probable,  that,  in  describing  the  formation  of  the  Soul  of 

VOL.    III.  13 


98  EVIDENCES  OF  THE 

composition  through  lengthwise  into  two  parts, 
he  adjusted  the  middle  of  one  part  to  that  of 


the  Universe  according  to  the  laws  of  harmony,  Plato  had  in  mind 
the  Pythagorean  doctrine  of  the  harmony  produced  by  the  heav- 
enly bodies  in  their  revolutions  ;  —  ille  tantus  et  tarn  dulcis  sonus, 
which  Scipio  heard  in  his  "  Dream," 

"  '  When  '  nature  thundered  in  his  opening  ears, 

And  '  charmed  '  him  with  the  music  of  the  spheres." 

But  Plato  himself  does  not  attempt  to  explain  how  this  music  of 
the  heavenly  bodies  might  be  produced  by  the  structure  of  the 
Mundane  Soul ;  nor  does  he  indicate  any  relation  between  the 
two  conceptions.  By  later  writers  (Chalcidius  in  Timaeum, 
p.  313.  Ed.  Fabricii ;  Macrobius  in  Somnium  Scipionis,  Lib.  II. 
capp.  1-3)  such  a  relation  was  conceived  of  as  existing. — It 
was  imagined  that  musical  sounds  were  produced  by  the  impulse 
of  the  heavenly  bodies  upon  the  medium  through  which  they 
moved  (Macrobius  says  "  the  air"),  and  that  these  sounds  were 
harmonious,  because  the  distances  of  those  bodies  from  each  other 
corresponded  to  musical  intervals.  Eratosthenes,  in  the  second 
century  before  Christ,  attempted  scientifically  to  measure  the 
earth.  He  determined  its  circumference  to  be  31,500  Roman 
miles  (the  Roman  mile  is  to  the  English  as  967  to  10.56).  Cen- 
sorinus  (De  Die  Natali,  c.  13),  carrying  back  this  knowledge  to 
the  time  of  Pythagoras,  says  that  Pythagoras  taught  that  the 
distance  of  the  moon  from  the  earth  was  half  the  circumference 
of  the  earth,  or  15,750  Roman  miles,  which  (for  some  unexplained 
reason)  he  considered  as  corresponding  to  the  interval  of  a  tone  ; 
that  Mercury  was  a  semitone,  or  7,875  miles  distant  from  the 
Moon  ;  Venus  the  same  distance  from  Mercury ;  the  Sun  two 
tones  and  a  semitone,  or  23,625  miles  from  A^enus,  and  so  on  ; 
making,  in  the  whole,  the  distance  of  the  orb  of  the  fixed  stars 
from  the  earth  to  be  94,500  Roman  miles.  According  to  Macro- 
bius, the  Platonists,  proceeding  on  the  same  principle  of  a  refer- 
ence to  musical  intervals,  computed  the  distances  of  the  heavenly 


GENUINENESS  OF  THE  GOSPELS.  99 

the  Other  in  the  form  of  the  letter  X,  and, 
bending  each  round  into  a  circle,  he  fitted  them 
together,  and  to  each  other,  opposite  to  the 
place  where  they  were  first  put  together,  and 
gave  them  a  revolving  motion  always  uniform 
through  the  same  space.  And  he  made  one 
of  the  circles  exterior  and  the  other  interior. 
The  exterior  motion  he  appointed  to  be  of 
the  uniform  nature,  the  interior  of  the  different. 
That  of  the  Uniform  he  carried  round  laterally 
to  the  right ;  that  of  the  Different,  diameter- 
wise  to  the  left.*     The  superior  power  he  gave 

bodies  differently,  but  not  more  correctly.  —  Thus  a  theory  was 
formed  to  explain  an  imaginary  effect  by  imaginary  causes,  be- 
tween which  causes  and  the  effect  no  intelligible  relation  could 
be  traced. 

*  Plato  conceived  of  the  outer  circle  of  the  Mundane  Soul  as 
causing  the  daily  revolution  of  the  heavens  from  east  to  west,  and 
of  the  inner  circle,  divided  into  seven  parts  (to  be  immediately 
mentioned  above),  as  causing  the  revolution  of  the  Sun,  Moon, 
and  planets,  from  west  to  east.  In  calling  the  west  the  right,  and 
the  east  the  left,  he  used  a  mode  of  speaking,  the  correctness  of 
which  Aristotle  (De  CceIo,  Lib.  II.  c.  2)  says  was  asserted  by 
the  Pythagoreans ;  and  though  Aristotle  argues  strenuously  for 
an  opposite  use  of  the  terms,  it  seems  subsequently  to  have  been 
common  in  treating  of  the  heavens.  See  Philo  de  Cherubim. 
0pp.  I.  142.     PUnii  Hist.  Nat.  Lib.  II.  6.  4. 

Plato  says  that  the  outer  circle  was  carried  round  Kara  ivKevpav, 
laterally,  the  inner  koto.  ha^eTpov,  which  I  have  ventured  to  ren- 
der diameter-wise.  Apparently,  what  he  intended  by  these  indefi- 
nite words  may  be  thus  explained.  He  conceived  of  the  inner 
circle  of  the  soul  (answering  in  its  position  to  the  Zodiac)  as  re- 


100  EVIDENCES   OF   THE 

to  the  periphery  of  the  uniform  and  homo- 
geneous nature.  This  he  left  undivided  ;  but 
the  interior  he  divided  into  seven  unequal  cir- 
cles, according  to  the  several  divisions  of  the 
double  and  triple  intervals,*  there  being  three 
intervals  of  each  kind.  And  he  appointed  the 
circles  to  move  contrariwise  to  each  other, 
but  three  w^ith  equal  velocity ;  the  other  four 
with  velocities    different   from    each  other    and 


volving  in  the  plane  of  its  diameters  ;  that  is,  as  he  terms  it,  naTo. 
bid^erpov,  diameter-wise ;  but  the  outer  circle,  which,  in  his  view, 
carried  round  the  heavenly  bodies,  through  every  part  of  heaven, 
in  their  daily  revolution,  he  conceived  of  as  not  revolving  in  the 
plane  of  its  diameters,  but  as  turning  on  an  axis  (the  axis  of  the 
heavens)  passing  from  north  to  south  through  its  opposite  sides  ; 
that  is,  according  to  his  expression,  as  carried  round  Kara  n\evpav, 
laterally. 

Stallbaum,  in  his  late  elaborate  edition  of  the  Timaeus,  quotes 
a  passage  from  Proclus,  who,  he  says,  "  very  clearly  explains  " 
the  terms  just  remarked  upon  "  from  the  geometrical  method  of 
philosophizing  of  the  ancient  Pythagoreans  and  Platonists."  But 
to  my  apprehension  the  pretended  explanation  of  Proclus  is  only 
so  far  intelligible,  as  to  show  that  he  had  in  mind  some  conception 
equally  incoherent,  and  irrelevant.  Whatever  meaning  is  to  be 
discerned  in  the  passage  quoted  from  him  consists,  to  all  appear- 
ance, of  imaginations  of  his  own  ;  and  I  do  not  know  on  what 
ground  the  imaginations  of  Proclus,  eight  centuries  after  the  time 
of  Plato,  are  to  be  attributed  to  that  philosopher.  The  later  Pla- 
tonists afford  evidence  for  nothing  concerning  the  philosophy  of 
Plato  but  their  own  conceptions  of  it. 

*  The  double  and  triple  intervals  are  the  six  before  mentioned. 
See  p.  94,  note  f . 


GENUINENESS   OF  THE  GOSPELS.  101 

from  that  of  the  three,  but  revolving  according 
to  rule.* 


*  The  seven  sections  of  the  inner  circle  of  the  Mundane  Soul 
are  the  seven  orbs  which  Plato  conceived  of  as  carrying  the  heav- 
enly bodies  of  our  system  round  the  earth  from  west  to  east. 
The  distances  of  those  bodies  from  the  earth  he  supposed  to  be  in 
the  following  order:  —  The  Moon,  the  Sun,  Venus,  Mercury, 
Mars,  Jupiter,  and  Saturn  ;  unless,  perhaps,  he  thought  Mercury 
nearer  the  earth  than  Venus ;  a  point  on  which  the  opinions  of 
the  ancients  were  divided.  The  inner  circle  of  the  Soul  Plato 
has  hitherto  represented  as  a  band.  How  he  imagined  it  to  be  so 
divided  as  to  form  circles,  one  exterior  to  another,  does  not 
appear. 

The  three  circles  supposed  to  move  with  the  same  velocity  are 
those  which  are  the  deferents  of  the  Sun,  Mercury,  and  Venus  ; 
Mercury  and  Venus  each  performing  its  apparent  revolution  round 
the  Earth  in  about  the  same  time  with  the  Sun.  But  it  is  evident, 
that,  if  the  orbs  of  Mercury  and  Venus  are  exterior  to  that  of  the 
Sun,  and  perform  their  revolutions  in  the  same  time  with  it,  they 
must  move,  not  with  the  like  velocity,  as  Plato  says  (raxei  ofioias), 
but  with  greater  velocity.  He  also  describes  the  seven  sections 
of  the  inner  circle  as  moving  contrariwise  to  each  other  (Kara 
TavavrLa  fj.ev  aKXr}\ois)  ;  but  it  is  equally  clear  that  circles  all 
moving  from  west  to  east  cannot  move  contrariwise  to  each 
other. 

The  contradiction  of  ideas,  which  represent  circles  of  different 
diameters  as  performing  their  revolutions  in  the  same  time  with 
the  same  velocity,  does  not  admit  of  any  management  by  which 
it  may  be  veiled.  The  most  we  can  do  is  to  account  for  its 
appearance  by  a  reference  to  the  fact,  that  Plato  had  in  mind  the 
apparent  motion  of  the  three  heavenly  bodies  of  which  he  con- 
ceived those  circles  to  be  the  deferents.  The  case  is  the  same 
with  his  representation,  that  the  seven  circles  which  are  deferents 
of  the  seven  heavenly  bodies  all  move  from  west  to  east,  and  at 
the  same  time  move  contrariwise  to  each  other.     This,  likewise, 


102  EVIDENCES   OF  THE 

"  But  after  the  whole  structure   of  the   soul 
was  completed   agreeably  to  the   mind  of  him 


is  to  be  accounted  for  only  by  supposing  that  he  confounded  the 
deferents  of  the  heavenly  bodies  with  the  heavenly  bodies  them- 
selves, and  referred  to  the  apparent  motions  of  the  latter.  Of 
this  there  is  no  hint  in  the  passage  before  us  ;  but  that  such  was 
the  fact  appears  from  another  passage  a  few  pages  after  ;  which, 
however,  if  it  throw  some  light,  —  not  on  the  meaning  of  Plato's 
words,  for  that  cannot  be,  but  on  the  conceptions  in  his  mind 
when  he  wrote  those  words,  —  yet  brings  also  a  new  access  of 
darkness.  Plato  there  says  (pp.  38,  39),  that  Venus  and  Mercu- 
ry perform  their  courses  with  the  same  velocity  as  the  Sun,  but 
"  possess  a  power  contrary  to  it  (ttjv  S'  ivavriav  elXrjxoTes  avra 
8vvafiiv)  ;  whence  the  Sun,  Mercury,  and  Venus  overtake  and 
are  overtaken  by  one  another  in  turn."  The  Sun,  Moon,  and 
planets,  he  says,  "  are  borne  along  by  the  oblique  motion  of  the 
Different  [the  motion  from  west  to  east],  passing  through  and 
controlled  by  the  motion  of  the  Uniform  [the  motion  from  east  to 
west]  ;  some  describing  greater,  and  others  lesser  circles  ;  the  lat- 
ter bodies  revolving  more  swiftly,  and  the  former  more  slowly. 
But,  in  consequence  of  the  motion  of  the  Uniform,  those  which 
revolve  most  swiftly,  when  they  overtake  those  which  revolve 
more  slowly,  appear  to  be  overtaken  by  them  ;  for  this  motion 
bends  all  their  circles  into  spirals,  in  consequence  of  their  moving 
under  the  action  of  two  contrary  forces,  and  thus  causes  that  body 
which  recedes  most  slowly  from  it,  this  being  the  swiftest  motion, 
to  appear  nearest  tp  it. ' ' 

Stallbaum  gives,  in  a  note,  a  translation  of  the  latter  part  of 
this  passage,  in  which  he  aggravates  its  character  by  the  mistake 
of  substituting  "  the  motion  of  the  Different  "  for  the  "  motion  of 
the  Uniform,^''  as  that  which  bends  the  courses  of  the  heavenly 
bodies  spirally,  and  "  causes  that  body  which  recedes  most  slowly 
from  it,  this  being  the  swiftest  motion,  to  appear  nearest  to  it." 
He  then  subjoins,  —  Qucb  quomodo  intelUgi  debeant,  certe  nulla  in- 
diget  eitplicatione ;  "  How  this  is  to  be  understood  certainly  needs 


GENUINENESS  OF  THE  GOSPELS.  103 

who  framed  it,  he  then  fashioned  the  corporeal 
universe  within  it,   and,   adjusting   the    middle 

no  explanation."     There  is  an  error  of  one  word  in  this  remark. 
Instead  of"  needs,"  he  should  have  said  "  admits." 

Some  fragments  of  meaning,  however,  may,  I  think,  be  dis- 
covered in  the  words  of  Plato  himself.  In  consequence  of  "  the 
motion  of  the  Uniform,'"  he  says,  "  those  bodies  which  revolve 
most  swiftly,  when  they  overtake  those  which  revolve  more  slow- 
ly, appear  to  be  overtaken  by  them."  Apparently,  he  here  refers 
to  the  fact,  that,  if  one  of  the  heavenly  bodies  of  our  system  have 
a  more  rapid  apparent  motion  to  the  east  than  another,  then, 
viewed  in  reference  to  their  daily  revolution,  the  slower  will  ap- 
pear to  be  gaining  on  the  swifter.  Having  been  to  the  east  of  it, 
it  will  appear  to  the  west ;  and  thus  the  slower,  having  first  fol- 
lowed the  swifter  in  its  daily  course,  will  afterwards  rise,  arrive 
at  the  meridian,  and  set  before  it.  —  The  imagination  of  the 
courses  of  the  heavenly  bodies  being  rendered  spiral  by  the  con- 
trary forces  of  "  the  Uniform  "  and  "  the  Different  "is  in  itself 
intelligible  ;  but  has  no  relation  to  the  fact  just  mentioned,  with 
which  Plato  has  connected  it.  It  appears  to  be  an  attempt  to  ac- 
count for  the  retrograde  motion  of  the  planets  ;  and,  if  so,  it  is  as 
plausible  a  theory  as  that  of  Pliny  (Hist.  Nat.  Lib.  II.  c.  13), 
who  ascribes  this  motion  to  the  percussion  of  the  rays  of  the  Sun, 
striking  the  planets  in  certain  parts  of  their  orbits  in  a  particular 
direction.  —  In  the  conclusion  of  the  sentence  it  is  said,  that  the 
motion  of  the  Uniform  "  causes  that  body  which  recedes  most 
slowly  from  it,  this  being  the  swiftest  motion,  to  appear  nearest  to 
it  "  ;  and  this  remark  is  intended  to  explain  why,  among  heaven- 
ly bodies,  the  slower  appear  to  overtake  the  swifter.  Plato,  as 
we  have  seen,  conceived  of  the  motion  of  the  Uniform,  or,  rather, 
of  the  cause  of  this  motion,  as  residing  in  that  circle  of  the  Mun- 
dane Soul  which,  extending  from  north  to  south,  revolves  from 
east  to  west,  and  becomes  in  its  daily  revolution  coincident  with 
every  meridian.  When  he  speaks  of  the  nearness  of  a  body  to 
the  motion  of  the   Uniform,  it  would  seem  that  he  must  mean  its 


104  EVIDENCES  OF  THE 

of  one  to  that  of  the  other,  fitted  them  to- 
gether.    Thus    the    Soul,  interwoven    in   every 

nearness  to  that  circle.  The  proposition  which  he  makes,  being 
in  effect  that  the  body  which  recedes  most  slowly  from  it  will 
appear  nearest  to  it,  is  virtually  an  identical  proposition.  But, 
perhaps,  what  he  had  in  mind  was,  that  the  slower  body,  having 
been  passed  by  a  swifter,  while  both  are  receding  to  the  east  from 
the  circle  of  the  Uniform,  would  remain  nearer  to  that  circle,  and 
would  consequently  arrive  at  the  meridian  sooner,  and  would  thus, 
as  before  explained,  appear  to  have  overtaken  the  swifter  body  in 
their  daily  revolution. 

I  have  seen  a  reference  to  a  passage  of  the  Epinomis,  as  show- 
ing that  Plato  "  had  a  distinct  acquaintance  with  the  general  char- 
acter of  the  planetary  motions."  But  the  Epinomis  was,  proba- 
bly, not  a  work  of  Plato,  but  of  a  much  inferior  author  ;  and  the 
passage  (p.  986,  seqq.)  is  of  no  interest.  It  affords  proof  only  of 
what,  even  in  the  time  of  the  writer,  must  have  been  considered 
as  the  most  elementary  astronomical  knowledge.  The  account 
of  the  planetary  motions  which  I  have  formerly  quoted  (see  be- 
fore, p.  24]  from  the  seventh  book  of  the  "  Laws  "  may,  per- 
haps, be  reconciled,  at  least  verbally,  with  that  given  in  the 
Timaeus,  which  we  have  been  considering.  In  the  tenth  book  of 
his  Republic  (pp.  616,  617)  Plato  gives  another  account  of  the  as- 
tronomical system  of  the  universe  under  the  form  of  an  allegory. 
But  it  has  ever  been  the  despair  of  his  commentators.  The 
glimpses  of  meaning  that  appear  are  rarer  and  fainter  and  more 
confused  than  those  we  have  been  following. 

There  is  still  another  remarkable  fact  respecting  the  astronom- 
ical speculations  of  Plato.  Notwithstanding  that  in  the  passage 
quoted  above  he  ascribes  a  diurnal  revolution  to  the  heavens,  yet 
it  has  been  supposed  that  in  another  passage,  which  follows  at  no 
great  distance  (p.  40),  he  ascribes  a  diurnal  revolution  to  the 
Earth.  Whether  he  do  so  or  not  has  been  a  matter  of  doubt  and 
controversy  from  his  own  time.  The  decision  of  the  question 
depends  ultimately  on  the  meaning  w  hich  he  intended  to  give  to 


GENUINENESS   OF  THE  GOSPELS.  105 

part    of    it    from   the   centre    to    the    farthest 
heaven,    and    circumfused    around    it,    and   re- 


an  ambiguous  word.  He  says,  —  "  But  the  Earth,  our  nurse, 
rolling  round  (or  conglobed  round,  ciKKofiivr^v)  the  axis  of  the 
Universe,  he  (the  Creator)  formed  to  be  the  maker  and  preserver 
of  day  and  night."  The  last  clause  favors  the  supposition,  that 
he  liere  meant  to  ascribe  to  the  Earth  a  daily  revolution,  though  it 
may  be  otherwise  explained.  But,  whatever  were  his  meaning, 
he  was  understood  as  asserting,  in  this  passage,  the  revolution  of 
the  Earth,  by  his  disciple,  Aristotle.  (De  Coslo,  Lib.  H.  capp.  13, 
14.)  He  is  said  to  have  held  this  opinion  by  the  historian  of 
ancient  philosophers,  Diogenes  Laertius.  (Lib.  HL  §  75.)  And 
Cicero,  after  mentioning  the  theory,  that  the  heavens  do  not  re- 
volve, but  that  their  apparent  revolution  is  caused  by  that  of  the 
Earth,  says,  that  "  some  think  that  Plato  has  taught  this  in  his 
Timseus,  but  rather  obscurely."  (Academic.  Quaest.  Lib.  IV. 
§  39.)  Nothing  can  more  evidently  show  the  confusion  and  ob- 
scurity with  which  Plato  expressed  himself,  and  consequently  the 
confusion  and  incoherence  of  his  ideas,  than  the  question  which 
existed,  Whether  he  did  or  did  not  virtually  contradict  himself  in 
the  compass  of  a  few  pages  ;  and  the  opinion  asserted  or  suggest- 
ed by  the  three  writers  whom  I  have  mentioned,  that  such  was 
the  case.  It  is,  at  the  same  time,  well  deserving  of  remark,  that 
no  one  of  those  writers  takes  any  notice  of  the  obvious  inconsis- 
tency of  the  supposed  meaning  of  the  passage  in  question  with 
what  Plato  elsewhere  plainly  asserts. 

On  Plato's  allegorical  exposition  of  the  universe,  before  referred 
to,  in  the  tenth  book  of  the  Republic,  one  of  his  most  intelligent 
and  judicious  translators,  M.  Grou,  makes  the  following  tolerant 
observation  :  — "  We  must  not  here  look  for  astronomical  precision 
and  exactness.  In  narrations  of  this  kind,  which  Plato  employs 
from  time  to  time  to  embellish  his  dialogues,  he  indulges  much  in 
imagination  ;  it  is  his  object  rather  to  please  by  poetical  images, 
than  to  say  what  is  true." 

But  the  essential  foundation  of  all  beauty  in  allegories,  and  in 

VOL.    III.  14 


106  EVIDENCES  OF  THE 

volving  bj  its  own  motion,  entered  upon  the 
divine  commencement  of  a  life  always  in  action, 
full  of  intelligence,  to  continue  for  ever." 

all  poetical  conceptions,  is  conformity  to  truth,  actual  or  possible. 
An  allegory  which  does  not  correspond  to  a  real  or  conceivable 
state  of  things  is  but  a  pretended  riddle  without  meaning. 

The  mind  of  Plato  was  mystical,  —  often  conversant  with  un- 
formed and  incongruous  conceptions,  incapable  of  being  definitely 
apprehended,  which,  as  is  the  tendency  of  such  minds,  he  mistook 
for  important  truths.  Those  conceptions  he  was  naturally  led  to 
hide  from  too  close  examination  by  the  use  of  terms  in  very  loose 
and  changeable  senses,  and  by  oracular  and  imperfect  modes  of 
expression,  to  which  no  intelligible  and  consistent  meaning  can 
be  assigned.  What,  however,  might  now  be  fairly  ascribed  to  in- 
capacity in  the  writer  is  to  be  accounted  for  in  Plato  by  the  im- 
perfect state  of  human  knowledge  in  his  time,  and  by  the  little 
progress  that  mankind  had  made  in  forming  and  defining  abstract 
ideas,  and  in  settling  the  significance  of  the  language  by  which 
they  are  expressed.  He  was  an  explorer  in  new  fields  of  specu- 
lation. His  views  were  wide  ;  he  opened  many  subjects,  and  he 
is  fertile  in  thoughts  and  imaginations.  But  his  discussions  are 
often  unsatisfactory  and  evasive.  .  He  rarely  explains  himself 
clearly  and  fully.  In  attempting  to  be  profound  he  becomes  con- 
fused and  obscure.  A  great  part  of  his  reasoning  consists  in  the 
deceptive  management  of  words,  sometimes  amusing  from  the 
dexterity  with  which  it  is  performed,  sometimes  perplexing  from 
the  difficulty  of  understanding  him,  or,  perhaps,  from  the  difficulty 
of  solving  the  puzzle  which  he  propounds,  but  as  often  wearisome 
from  its  want  of  all  real  meaning  or  force.  The  time  had  not 
come  when  the  questions  which  he  raises  could  be  properly 
treated.  His  morality  is  sometimes  false  from  being  overstrained, 
and  sometimes,  which  was  in  part  the  fault  of  his  age,  grossly 
defective.  Were  it  that  of  a  modern  writer  in  a  Christian  coun- 
try, even  this  censure  would  be  far  too  mild.  His  notions  of  re- 
ligion, as  may  be  supposed,  were  very  imperfect.     But,  however 


GENUINENESS   OF  THE  GOSPELS.  107 

It  is  unnecessary  to  show  how  unsubstantial 
is  this  phantom  of  a  theory,  and  how  slightly  it 
is  connected  with  any  truth  whatever.  All  is 
assumption  without  proof;  reasoning  is  out  of 
the  question  ;  it  is  a  mere  work  of  imagination  ; 
and  the  same  character  belongs  generally  to 
the  dialogue  in  which  it  is  found,  as  well  as  to 
much  else  that  has  been  left  us  by  Plato.  In 
the  speculations  of  Ptolemy  the  Valentinian,  to 
which  we  are  about  to  turn  ("  quidquid  male 
feriatum  caput  parturire  potuit  deliriorum,^^  as 
they  are  called  by  a  modern  expositor  of  them*), 
there  is  nothing  more  unsupported  by  proof,  or 


great  may  be  the  deductions  to  be  made  from  his  character  as  a 
moral  and  religious  teacher,  yet  his  peculiar  distinction  consists  in 
the  high  conceptions  of  morality  and  religion  to  which  he  often 
attained,  and  which  he  forcibly  expresses.  These  charm  us  ;  and 
excite  our  wonder  from  their  contrast  with  what  was  around  him. 
It  was,  we  may  believe,  the  noble  tone  of  sentiment  sounding 
forth  from  his  writings,  that  kindled  the  enthusiasm  of  Cicero  : 
"  Sequar  igitur,"  he  says,  in  commencing  the  third  book  of  his 
own  work  on  Laws,  "  Sequar  igitur,  ut  institui,  divinum  ilium 
virum  ;  quem  quadam  admiratione  commotus  saepius  fortasse  laudo 
quam  necesse  est."  With  this  characteristic,  Plato  combined,  as 
I  have  said,  great  fertility  of  mind,  a  style  which,  viewed,  per- 
haps, relatively  to  that  of  other  philosophers,  was  the  admiration 
of  antiquity,  though  some  of  its  defects  were  recognized  (as  by 
Dionysius  of  Halicarnassus) ,  and  much  of  an  artist's  skill  in  the 
disposition  and  portraiture  of  the  circumstances  and  characters  of 
his  dialogues. 

•  Massuet,  in  his  first  DisserUtion  on  Irenaeus,  §  11.  p.  5. 


108  EVIDENCES  OF  THE 

more  remote  from  modern  conceptions,  than  in 
some  of  those  of  the  Athenian  philosopher ;  on 
which,  indeed,  they  were  in  great  part  founded. 
The  early  Christian  writers,  both  catholic  and 
heretic,  have  been  treated  unfairly  in  being 
separated  from  their  predecessors  and  contem- 
poraries, brought  before  the  bar  of  modern 
criticism,  and  condemned  for  their  violation  of 
laws  of  thinking  and  reasoning  which  were 
unknown  to  their  age,  and  which  the  most 
celebrated  of  heathen  philosophers  regarded  as 
little  as  they. 

"  Non  magis  licuit  Valentino,''''  says  Le  Clerc,* 
"  ex  Ideis  Personas  facere,  quam,  Platoni,  et  vul- 
garia  prorsus  aut  etiam  ahsurda  caligine  invol- 
vere,  ut  mira  viderentiir,  nee  expendi  a  quovis 
possent.^^ — "  Valentinus  had  no  more  right  than 
Plato  to  transform  Ideas  into  persons,  and  to 
involve  trivialities  and  even  absurdities  in  ob- 
scurity, in  order  to  make  them  appear  some- 
thing wonderful,  and  to  prevent  ordinary  men 
from  passing  judgment  upon  them."  It  is  true 
that  Valentinus  had  no  more  right  to  do  so  than 
Plato ;  but,  perhaps,  he  had  more  excuse  for 
doing  so,  since  it  would  be  idle  to  compare  his 


*  Hist.  Eccles.  duorum  priorum  Sseculorum.  An.  121.  ^  7.  not. 
20.  p.  583. 


GENUINENESS  OF  THE  GOSPELS.         109 

intellectual  powers  with  those  of  the  Athenian 
philosopher.  But  the  meaning  of  Le  Clerc 
does  not,  I  conceive,  lie  on  the  surface.  What 
he  principally  meant  to  express  was,  without 
doubt,  the  implication,  that  there  are  specula- 
tions of  Plato  as  extravagant  and  unfounded  as 
those  of  the  Valentinians. 

It  is  to  be  remarked,  that  the  greater  part  of 
the  passage  which  has  been  quoted  from  Plato 
relates  to  ideas  of  sensible  objects,  or  to  mathe- 
matical ideas  ;  —  to  ideas  in  the  conception  of 
which  absolute  precision  is  easily  attainable. 
The  ideas  of  figures,  lines,  and  motions  are,  in 
their  own  nature,  perfectly  definite.  The  case 
is  wholly  diiferent  with  the  abstract  and  com- 
plex ideas  which  belong  to  moral  and  metaphys- 
ical science.  They  have  no  external  standard 
to  which  they  may  be  referred.  It  requires 
great  perspicacity  to  trace  their  outlines  precise- 
ly, and  to  determine  what  should  and  what 
should  not  enter  into  their  composition.  Much 
watchfulness  is  necessary  to  preserve  these 
shadowy  abstractions  and  artificial  combinations 
of  thought  unchanged  during  a  process  of  in- 
vestigation. Men  often  give  the  same  name  to 
conceptions  which  are  essentially  different,  but 
have  an  illusory  semblance  of  each  other. 
When,  therefore,  we  find  a  writer  confused  and 


110  EVIDENCES    OF  THE 

self-contradictory  in  treating  what  relates  to 
physical  and  mathematical  science,  we  may  be 
assured  that  the  same  characteristics  will  exist 
in  his  moral  and  metaphysical  discussions.  If 
there  is  much  incoherence  in  Plato's  attempt  to 
give  an  astronomical  account  of  the  system  of 
the  heavens,  we  cannot  expect  to  find  him  more 
clear  and  satisfactory  when  he  undertakes  to 
treat  of  the  intelligible  world. 

I  have  particularly  adverted  to  Plato  in  this 
connection,  because  the  speculations  of  the 
Gnostics  were  intimately  allied  to  the  Platonic 
philosophy,  either  as  it  existed  in  the  writings  of 
its  founder,  or  as  it  had  been  modified  by  his 
followers.  Plato's  influence  was,  also,  great 
over  the  minds  of  the  catholic  Christians;  and 
much  that  they  connected  with  their  Chris- 
tian faith  was  derived  either  immediately  from 
him  or  from  his  representative,  Philo.  Nor 
is  it  difficult  to  account  for  his  ascendency. 
Whatever  may  have  been  his  defects  or  incon- 
sistencies, he  had  approximated  nearer  than  any 
other  of  the  ancient  Greek  philosophers  to 
moral  and  religious  truth,  that  is,  to  the  doc- 
trines of  Christianity.  If  he  had  not  main- 
tained the  truths  which  he  asserted  by  any  great 
cogency  of  reasoning,  he  had  illustrated  them 
by  the  splendor  of  his  genius.     Developing  and 


GENUINENESS   OF  THE  GOSPELS.  Ill 

enlarging  the  conceptions  which  he  had  derived 
from  Socrates,  he  was,  as  I  have  before  ob- 
served, the  great  theological  philosopher  of 
heathen  antiquity.  No  other  heathen  writer 
had  like  him  insisted  on  the  connection  between 
morals  and  religion.  He  had  taught  that  there 
was  a  divine  moral  government  over  the  world, 
in  reference  to  which  life  should  be  regulated 
and  the  character  formed.  He  had  inculcated 
a  constant  regard  to  the  well-being  of  the 
thinking  principle  in  man,  the  immortal  soul, 
which  might  be  raised  to  companionship  with 
gods,  or  degraded  to  animate  a  brute;  which 
might  be  made  happy  or  miserable  hereafter, — 
miserable  by  yielding  to  the  appetites  and  pas- 
sions, or  happy  by  a  life  of  philosophy  and 
virtue.*     It  is  not   strange,  therefore,  that  the 

*  It  is,  however,  important  to  be  observed,  that  Plato's  doctrine 
of  the  immortality  of  the  soul  was  essentially  different  from  the 
Christian  doctrine  of  the  personal  immortality  of  men.  It  was 
connected  with  the  belief  of  the  prefixistence  of  souls  from  the 
commencement  of  the  universe,  and  of  their  frequent  transmigra- 
tion into  different  bodies  of  men  and  of  inferior  animals.  With 
the  belief  of  the  prefixistence  of  the  soul  through  a  past  duration, 
eternal  or  undefined,  the  belief  of  its  future  immortality,  so  far  as 
it  was  held  by  any  of  the  ancient  heathens,  seems  to  have  been 
universally  connected.  It  was  also  connected  commonly,  almost 
universally,  with  a  belief  in  the  transmigration  of  the  soul.  It 
was  the  prevailing  doctrine  of  Plato,  that,  with  the  exception  of 
some  souls,  who  were  fixed  in  a  state  of  happiness  or  suffering 


112  EVIDENCES  OF  THE 

writings  of  Plato  should  have  been  highly  es- 
teemed by  many  of  the  fathers ;  or  that,  among 

by  having  become  highly  purified  or  greatly  depraved,  all  those 
originally  created,  whose  number  was  subsequently  neither 
increased  nor  diminished,  were  continually  animating  in  succes- 
sion different  bodies,  and  forming  different  beings.  At  the  same 
time,  he  taught,  that  men,  whose  souls  fell  into  neither  of  the  two 
classes  just  mentioned,  retained  their  personality  for  a  certain 
period  after  death,  during  which  they  were  rewarded  or  punished 
for  their  good  or  evil  lives.  When  this  period  was  finished,  their 
souls  returned  to  earth  to  constitute  different  individuals.  From 
the  region  of  the  living  there  was  a  constant  passage  of  souls  to 
the  region  of  the  dead,  and  a  constant  return  from  it  to  the  region 
of  the  living.  As  regards  the  generality  of  men,  his  scheme 
was  wholly  inconsistent  with  a  belief  in  their  personal  immortal- 
ity. Yet  on  conceptions  which  were  thus  imperfect,  and  which 
in  his  different  works  are  not  altogether  consistent  with  one 
another,  he  has  founded  the  most  solemn  exhortations  to  the  prac- 
tice of  virtue,  with  reference  to  the  well-being  of  the  soul,  and  to 
the  rewards  and  punishments  of  a  future  life.* 

Thus,  at  the  conclusion  of  the  argument  for  the  immortality 
of  the  soul  which  he  ascribes  to  Socrates,  as  uttered  on  the  day 
of  his  death,  he  represents  his  master  as  thus  addressing  the  few 
friends  who  were  gathered  round  him  in  his  prison  :  — "  But,  my 
friends,  it  is  right  to  consider  this ;  that,  if  the  soul  be  immortal, 
it  needs  our  care  not  only  as  regards  the  present  portion  of  time, 
which  we  call  life,  but  as  regards  the  whole  of  time  ;  and  the 
danger  may  well  appear  very  great,  should  we  neglect  it.     If,  in- 

*  Besides  what  is  contained  in  the  Phaedo,  the  most  important  pas- 
sages in  Plato  respecting  the  immortality  of  the  soul,  and  the  future 
state  of  individuals,  are,  I  think,  to  be  found  as  follows:  —  Timasus, 
pp.  41,  42.  p.  90,  seqq.  Phoedrus,  p.  245,  seqq.  Meno,  p.  81,  seqq. 
De  Republics,  Lib.  X.  p.  608,  seqq.  Gorgias,  p.  522,  seqq.  Apolo- 
gia, pp.  40,  41. 


GENUINENESS  OF  THE  GOSPELS.  113 

the  forms  of  philosophy  which  the  age  present- 
ed, that  derived  from  him  should  have  particu- 
larly recommended  itself  to  the  early  Chris- 
tians. 

There  was  much  connection,  as  I  have  said, 
between  the  speculations  of  the  theosophic 
Gnostics  and  the  Platonic  philosophy.  But 
those  speculations  were  essentially  founded  on  a 
doctrine  which  appears  not  to  have  assumed  a 
distinct  form  in  that  philosophy  till  long  after 
the  time  of  Plato,  and  to  have  been  of  Eastern 
origin.  It  is  the  doctrine  of  the  emanation  of 
inferior  beings  from  the  Supreme.  This  doc- 
trine is  partially  developed  by  Philo,  and  from 
him,  perhaps,  the  Gnostics  immediately  derived 
it ;  as  did  the  catholic  Christians,  in  its  applica- 
tion to  the  production  of  the  Logos.  But  it  is 
a  doctrine  which  has  spread  over  India ;  and  it 


deed,  death  were  a  deliverance  from  all  things,  it  might  be  a  gain 
for  the  bad  to  die,  and,  with  the  loss  of  the  soul,  to  be  delivered 
at  the  same  time  from  the  body  and  from  their  wickedness.  But 
now  since  it  appears  that  the  soul  is  immortal,  there  is  no  other 
escape  from  evil,  no  other  safety  for  it,  except  in  its  becoming  as 
good  and  wise  as  possible.  For  the  soul  will  go  to  Hades,  hav- 
ing nothing  but  its  discipline  and  instruction." 

What  marvellous  words  are  these  to  come  down  to  us  from 
pagan  antiquity  !  Be  it  Socrates  or  Plato  who  thus  taught,  "  the 
counsel  which  he  gave  in  those  days  was  as  if  a  man  had  consult- 
ed an  oracle  of  God." 

VOL.  III.  15 


114  GENUINENESS  OF  THE  GOSPELS. 

was  connected  by  the  Gnostics  with  remarkable 
conceptions,  which  appear  also  in  the  philosophy 
of  the  Bramins.  Some  of  them  will  be  advert- 
ed to  in  what  follows.  They  are  conceptions 
which  men  placed  in  very  different  circumstances 
do  not  seem  likely  to  have  held  in  common 
without  some  communication  with  each  other. 
But  the  channel  of  communication  between 
the  heretics  of  the  second  century  and  the  phi- 
losophers of  India  has  not  been  satisfactorily 
traced. 

With  these  views  of  the  general  character  of 
ancient  philosophy,  and  of  the  influences  acting 
upon  the  minds  of  the  early  Christians,  both 
catholics  and  heretics,  we  will  proceed  to  an 
account  of  the  speculations  of  the  theosophic 
Gnostics,  and  particularly  of  the  theory  of  the 
Valentinian  Ptolemy,  in  which  they  appear 
most  fully  developed. 


CHAPTER  VIII. 

(continued.) 


ON     THE     PECULIAR    SPECULATIONS    OF     THE     THEOSOPHIC 
GNOSTICS. 


Section  II. 

On  their  Speculations  concerning  the  Development  of  the 
Deity,  and  the  Spiritual  World. 

Of  the  speculations  of  the  theosophic  Gnos- 
tics, the  scheme  of  the  Valentinians  as  modified 
by  Ptolemy  affords  the  best  type  or  representa- 
tive. It  is  particularly  explained  and  dwelt 
upon  by  Irenseus.  It  exhibits  the  more  remark- 
able features  which  appear  to  have  been  com- 
mon to  their  systems.  It  presents  us  with  the 
conception  of  a  God  far  removed  from  the  ma- 
terial universe ;  and  of  divine  beings,  emanant, 
not  created,  and,  in  common  with  all  other 
spiritual  existences,  deriving  their  substance 
from  him.  But  its  most  striking  characteristic 
appears   in   the   representation  of   those  divine 


116  EVIDENCES  OF  THE 

beings    as    hypostatized   attributes   of   God,    or 
hypostatized  Ideas  of  the  Divine  Mind.* 

According  to  the  Ptolemaeo-Valentinian  sys- 
tem, the  First  Cause  and  First  Father  of  all 
things  dwelt  in  profound  repose  for  infinite  ages 
in  heights  invisible  and  unutterable.  He  was 
denominated  the  Deep.\  With  him  was  present, 
as  his  spouse.  Thought,  who  was  also  called  Fa- 
vor and  Silence.  At  a  certain  period,  the  Father 
determined  to  put  forth  from  himself  the  com- 
mencement of  all  things.     Silence  became  preg- 

*  The  account  that  follows  in  this  Chapter  is  derived  from  the 
first  three  chapters  of  the  first  book  of  Irenseus,  except  where 
some  other  authority  is  referred  to.  It  involves  conceptions  bor- 
rowed from  the  philosophy  of  Plato  and  his  followers,  which  I 
have  elsewhere  had  occasion  to  explain.  See  "  A  Statement  of 
Reasons  for  not  believing  the  Doctrines  of  Trinitarians,"  pp. 
229-288.  I  refer  to  this  explanation,  because  the  subject  is 
foreign  from  our  present  modes  of  thinking,  and  may  perhaps  be 
better  apprehended  by  being  regarded  from  different  points  of 
view ;  and  because  in  the  work  mentioned  I  have  given  authori- 
ties and  arguments,  which  I  have  not  thought  it  necessary  to  re- 
peat, for  some  of  the  assertions  in  what  follows.  I  shall  here- 
after refer  to  it  by  the  title  of  "  Statement  of  Reasons." 

By  Ideas  in  the  Platonic  philosophy  are  meant  the  archetypal 
forms  of  all  things  existing  in  the  sensible  world,  which  arche- 
types or  Ideas  are  supposed  to  have  eternally  existed  in  the  intel- 
ligible world,  and  to  be  not  only  the  archetypes,  but  also  the  forma- 
tive principles  and  essences,  of  all  things  in  the  sensible  world. 
See  before,  p.  77.     See  also  Additional  Note,  A. 

t  Bu^os. 


GENUINENESS  OF  THE  GOSPELS.  117 

nant  through  his  power,  and  produced  Intellect^ 
like  and  equal  to  him  from  whom  he  was  ema- 
nant,  and  alone  able  to  comprehend  the  great- 
ness of  his  Father.  He  was  called  also  the  Only 
Son*  the  Father^  and  the  Beginning^  of  all 
things.  With  him  was  likewise  produced  Truths 
as  his  spouse.  These  four  —  four  being  a 
mystic  number  of  the  highest  import  with  the 
Pythagoreans  —  formed  the  first  Quaternity  of 
Mons  or  Immortals^  which  is  the  root  of  all 
things. 

In  this  account,  the  three  iEons  or  Immortals 
who  are  introduced  together  with  the  Deity,  as 
well  as  all  those  iEons  who  will  be  mentioned 
hereafter,  are  to  be  considered,  not  as  allegorical 
personifications,  nor  as  representing  only  certain 
modes  in  which  the  undivided  Deity  may  be 
regarded  by  man,  but  as  proper  persons.  The 
derivative  iEons  are  attributes  of  God  hyposta- 
tized,  permanent  manifestations  of  God  in  per- 
sonal forms,  powers  of  God  emanant,  and 
acting  externally,  or  archetypal  Ideas  of  the  Di- 
vine Mind  endued  with  life.  Silence,  Thought, 
or  Favor  is  to  be  viewed,  at  least  in  consistency 
with  the  system,  as  an  attribute  of  the  Deity, 

*  Or  the  Only-begotten,  Moi/oyej/i7s.  t  Or  Principle,  'Apxri- 


118  EVIDENCES   OF  THE 

residing  with  him  in  a  personal  form.  The  Only 
Son  or  Intellect,  and  his  spouse,  Truth,  and  the 
other  iEons  hereafter  to  be  mentioned,  are  only 
those  attributes  and  Ideas  developed,  which  had 
before  existed,  folded  up,  if  one  may  so  speak, 
in  the  Divine  Mind.  Without  doubt,  unintelli- 
gible combinations  of  thought  are  presented  in 
this  statement ;  and  the  theory  is  not  to  be  com- 
prehended, but  can  only  be  pictured  before  the 
mind  as  a  fleeting  show  of  changing  and  incon- 
sistent images.  The  distinctness  of  a  modern 
statement  does  it  injustice,-  by  withdrawing  it 
from  the  doubtful  light  and  mystical  obscurity  in 
which  it  originally  appeared.  But  many  theo- 
ries that  have  been  treated  with  greater  favor 
and  respect  are  equally  exposed  to  the  same  dis- 
advantage. 

Each  male  ^Eon  hereafter  mentioned  is,  I 
believe,  further  to  be  considered  as  a  develop- 
ment of  some  particular  property  of  his  imme- 
diate progenitor,  the  ^on  from  whom  he  ema- 
nates ;  and  each  female  iEon  is  an  hypostatized 
Idea  of  somewhat  intimately  connected  with, 
or    immediately   resulting    from,    her    consort.* 


*  "  Feminam  enim  JEonem  paiiter  esse  oportet  cum  masculo, 
secundum  eos,  quum  sit  velut  affectio  ejus.  Et  haec  quum  ita  se 
habeant,  et  quum  hcec  dicantur  ab  ipsis,'^  &c.  Irenajus,  Lib.  II. 
c.  12.  ^^  2,  3.  p.  128.     That  this  fact  is  only  mentioned  inciden- 


GENUINENESS  OF  THE  GOSPELS.  119 

In  this  last  conception  we  perceive  one  of  those 
remarkable  coincidences  which  present  them- 
selves, between  the  theology  of  India  and  that 
of  the  Gnostics.  "The  Hindu  goddesses,"  says 
Sir  William  Jones,  "are  uniformly  represented 
as  the  subordinate  powers  of  their  respective 
Lords."* 

In  the  Hindu  theology  we  find  likewise  the 
strange  conception,  which  appears  in  the  scheme 
of  the  Gnostics,  of  assigning  a  spouse  to  the 
Supreme  Being.  "The  worship  of  the  female 
principle,"  says  Professor   Wilson,  "  as  distinct 

tally  by  Irenaeus  shows  how  imperfect  is  our  information  respect- 
ing the  theories  of  the  Gnostics  in  regard  to  all  but  their  funda- 
mental doctrines.  Some  further  intimations  of  it  are  collected  by 
Massuet  in  his  first  Dissertation  on  Irenaeus.  Irenaei  0pp.  P.  II. 
pp.  16,  22.  "Nothing,"  he  says  (p.  16),  "  is  of  more  frequent 
occurrence  in  Proclus  and  others  [of  the  Platonists],  than  gods, 
some  male,  some  female,  and  some  both  male  and  female,  where 
by  the  female  are  meant  nothing  but  the  powers  and  faculties  of 
the  gods,  intimately  adhering  to  them,  through  which  they  oper- 
ate and  produce  their  proper  effects." 

*  Argument  of  Hymn  to  Sereswaty.  —  "  Although,"  says  Pro- 
fessor Wilson,  "  the  general  worship  of  the  female  personifica- 
tions of  the  Hindu  deities  forms  a  class  by  itself,  yet,  when  indi- 
vidualized as  the  associates  of  the  divinities,  whose  energies  they 
are,  their  adoration  becomes  so  linked  with  that  of  the  male  pow- 
er, that  it  is  not  easy  even  to  their  votaries  to  draw  a  precise  line 
of  distinction  between  them."  "  Sketch  of  the  Religious  Sects 
of  the  Hindus."  Asiatic  Researches,  Vol.  XVI.  p.  12.5.  See 
also,  to  the  same  effect,  Colonel  Vans  Kennedy's  "  Ancient  and 
Hindu  Mythology,"  pp.  189,  283,  317,  seqq. 


120  EVIDENCES   OF  THE 

from  the  Divinity,  appears  to  have  originated  in 
the  literal  interpretation  of  the  metaphorical 
language  of  the  Vedas,  in  which  the  will  or  pur- 
pose to  create  the  universe  is  represented  as 
originating  from  the  Creator,  and  coexistent 
with  him  as  his  bride,  and  part  of  himself." 
He  adds,  that  in  the  Sankhya  system  of  philos- 
ophy, "Nature,  Prakriti  or  Mula  Prakriti,  is  de- 
fined to  be  of  eternal  existence  and  independ- 
ent origin,  distinct  from  the  Supreme  Spirit, 
productive  through  no  production,  and  the  plas- 
tic origin  of  all  things,  including  even  the  gods. 
Hence  Prakriti  has  come  to  be  regarded  as  the 
mother  of  gods  and  men,  whilst,  as  one  with 
matter,  the  source  of  error,  it  is  again  identified 
with  Maya,  or  delusion,  and  as  coexistent  with 
the  Supreme  as  his  Sdkti,  his  personified  ener- 
gy, or  his  bride.  These  mythological  fancies 
have  been  principally  disseminated  by  the  Purd- 
nas,  in  all  which  Prakriti  or  Maya  bears  a  prom- 
inent part."*  We  shall  have  occasion  again  to 
advert  to  the  subject. 

But  it  should  be  observed,  that  Irenaeus  inci- 
dentally mentions,  that  the  Valentinians  "some- 
times represented  the  Father  as  united  with 
Silence,  and  sometimes  as  raised  above  both  the 

*  Sketch  of  the  Religious  Sects  of  the  Hindus.     Asiatic  Re- 
searches, Vol.  XVn.  pp.  211-213. 


GENUINENESS  OF  THE  GOSPELS.  121 

male  and  female  nature."*  Mysticism  admits, 
or  rather  delights  in,  contradictions  ;  and  it  may 
appear  useless  to  attempt  to  account  for  lan- 
guage which  Irenaeus  has  left  unexplained.  But 
it  may  seem  probable  that  the  Valentinians  as- 
cribed a  commencement  to  the  personal  exist- 
ence of  Silence,  as  well  as  to  that  of  the  other 
^ons;  and  it  is  to  be  kept  in  mind,  that  their 
whole  system  of  ^Eons  is  an  account  of  the  de- 
velopment of  the  Divine  Nature,  which,  ac- 
cording to  the  notions  of  the  Valentinians,  might 
be  viewed  either  in  its  essential  unity,  or  as  re- 
solved into  these  different  hypostases. 

Froim  these  explanations  and  remarks  we 
return  to  the  detail  of  Ptolemy's  account  of  the 
Pleroma.  The  first  Quaternity  of  ^ons  having 
been   formed,   the    process    of  emanation  went 

*  Lib.  L  c.  2.  ^  4.  p.  10. — In  systems,  like  that  of  the  Valen- 
tinians, which  are  formed  out  of  allegories  and  metaphors  petri- 
fied into  doctrines,  it  is  often  difficult  to  determine  how  far  the 
process  has  gone  on.  We  cannot  always  readily  distinguish  in 
their  language  between  what  remains  of  a  figurative  character 
and  what  has  hardened  into  an  article  of  belief.  But  there  seems 
no  good  reason  to  question  that  the  Valentinians  ascribed  a  proper 
personal  existence  to  the  spouse  of  God,  as  well  as  to  their  other 
-^ons.  On  the  contrary,  when  Philo,  like  Ptolemy,  assigned  a 
spouse  to  God,  Wisdom  (see  Statement  of  Reasons,  pp.  255, 
256),  it  cannot  be  doubted  that  his  language  is  metaphorical, 
though  he  hypostatized  the  Logos  and  other  Powers  of  God. 

VOL.  III.  16 


122  EVIDENCES  OF  THE 

Oil.  The  iEons  continued  to  be  emitted  in 
pairs,  one  of  each  pair  being  male,  and  the  other 
female.  The  Only  Son  (likewise  called,  it  is  to 
be  recollected,  Intellect  and  the  Beginning),  un- 
derstanding the  end  of  his  production,  which 
was  to  be  the  fountain  of  being,  emitted  the 
Logos  (or  Reason)  and  Life,  the  Logos  being 
the  Father  of  all  who  were  to  succeed  him. 
This  derivation  of  the  Logos  and  Life  the  Val- 
entinians  maintained  to  be  taught  in  the  first 
verses  of  St.  John's  Gospel,  pointing  and  ren- 
dering one  passage  differently  from  what  we  do. 
"  In  the  Beginning,^''  that  is,  said  they,  in  the 
Only  Son,  one  of  whose  names  is  the  Beginning, 

"  was  the  Logos, and  what  was  formed  in 

him  was  Life'''';  that  is,  Life,  his  spouse.*  Per- 
haps, in  the  ostentation  of  superior  acuteness, 
the  Valentinians  had  refined  upon  the  common 
doctrine,  the  doctrine  of  Philo,  who  derived  the 
Logos  immediately  from  God,  and  had  thus  in- 
terposed a  new  being  between  the  Logos  and 
God.  But  in  these  conceptions  there  was  a  re- 
markable coincidence  between  them  and  Origen. 
He  explains  the  first  verse  of  John  in  a  similar 
manner.  Following  the  Septuagint  translation 
of  the  twenty-second  verse  of  the  eighth  chap- 

*  Irenaeus,  liib.  I.  c.  8.  §  5.  p.  41.     Doctrina  Orientalis,  ^  6.  p. 
968. 


GENUINENESS  OF  THE  GOSPELS.  123 

ter  of  Proverbs,  which,  is  to  this  effect :  —  "  The 
Lord  formed  me  [Wisdom]  the  beginning  of  his 
ways  to  his  works "  ;  *  and  hypostatizing  the 
wisdom  of  God,t  he  contends  that  the  Logos 
was  in  the  Beginning,  because  the  Logos  always 
existed  in  Wisdom;  and  that  he  was  not  sim- 
ply with  God,  but  was  so  as  being  in  Wisdom. 
On  this  doctrine  he  insists  repeatedly  in  his 
Commentary  on  John. J  It  may  be  remarked 
that  a  similar  conception  is  found  in  Tertullian. 
The  prophets  and  Apostles  teach,  he  says,  "  that 
Wisdom  was  first  formed  [by  God]  the  beginning 
of  his  ways  to  his  works ;  and  that  the  Logos 
(Sermo)  was  then  put  forth,  by  whom  all 
things  were  made."  ^ 

To  go  on  with  the  system  of  Ptolemy ;  from 
the  Logos  (or  Reason)  and  Life  proceeded 
another  pair  of  iEons,  Man  and  the  Church. 
Here  again,  perhaps,  appears  an  over-subtilty  in 
separating  what  had  been  before  united.  For, 
according  to  Philo,  the  Logos  was  the  archety- 

*  Kvpios  cKTia-e  fie  apx^jv  obav  avrov  els  epya  avrov.  In  this 
passage,  which  Origen  often  quotes  in  his  Commentary  on  John, 
he  several  times  (according  to  his  present  text)  gives  the  reading 
686v  instead  of  68a>v. 

t  Comment,  in  Joannem.  0pp.  IV,  39,  40. 

X  Ibid.  pp.  20-22,  47,  et  alibi. 

^  Advers.  Hermogenem,  c.  45.  p.  249. 


124  EVIDENCES  OF  THE 

pal  Idea  of  man,  "the  man  of  God";*  and  a 
similar  conception  is  found  in  Clement  of  Alex- 
andria.f 

The  eight  Mons  who  have  been  mentioned, 
namely,  God,  under  the  name  of  the  Deep,  and 
Thought  (or  Silence),  Intellect  and  Truth,  the  Lo- 
gos and  Life,  Mail  and  the  Church,  formed  the 
primitive  Ogdoad,t  which,  according  to  Irenaeus, 
was,  in  common  with  the  first  Quaternity  of 
jEons,  denominated  "  the  root  and  support  of  all 
things."  The  Valentinians  gave  to  it  also  the 
four  names  of  the  four  male  jEons ;  intending, 
as  I  conceive,  thus  to  signify,  that  these  are  only 
different  names  of  the  same  Being,  as  viewed 
with  reference  to  his  essential  nature,  or  to  his 
different  hypostatized  attributes.  Thus  Theodo- 
ret  says,  that  "  they  affirmed  the  Ogdoad  to  be 
the  First  ^on,"  that  is,  God.^ 

But  the  production  of  the  ^Eons  did  not  stop 
here.  Ten  others  besides  Man  and  the  Church 
emanated  from  the  Logos  and  Life ;  and  twelve 
from  Man  and  the  Church.     This  new  genera- 


*  De  Confusione  Linguarum.  0pp.  I.  411,  413. 

t  Stromat.  V.  ^  14.  p.  703. 

X  "  Ogdoad,"  from  the  Greek  oySody,  here  meaning  the  Eight. 

^  Haeret.  Fab.  Lib.  I.  n.  7.  0pp.  IV.  198.  The  passage 
which  I  quote  is  obviously  wrongly  pointed  and  translated  in  Sir- 
mond's  edition. 


GENUINENESS  OF  THE  GOSPELS.  125 

tion  of  iEons  ajipears  to  be  another  process  of 
decomposition,  in  which  the  attributes  of  the 
Logos,  the  common  progenitor  of  them  all,  are 
separated  into  distinct  persons,  the  male  ^Eons ; 
while  the  female  are  hjpostatized  Ideas  of 
something  intimately  connected  with  those  at- 
tributes. All  these  iEons  have  significant 
names,  which  confirm,  1  think,  the  suggestion 
just  made,  but  of  which  it  is  not  worth  while 
to  give  a  translation.  None  of  them  reappears 
individually  in  the  system,  except  the  last  female 
iEon  proceeding  from  Man  and  the  Church,  who 
was  named  Wisdom ;  being,  as  I  conceive,  the 
hypostatized  Idea  of  human  wisdom.  This 
-^on  does,  as  will  appear,  play  a  conspicuous 
part  in  it. 

Thirty  ^Eons  have  been  mentioned ;  and 
these  thirty  iEons  formed,  according  to  Irenaeus, 
the  Pleroma  of  the  Valentinians,  that  is  to  say, 
the  Full  Development  of  the  Divine  Nature. 
Four  other  ^Eons  belong,  as  we  shall  see,  to 
the  system  of  Ptolemy;  but  these  four,  Irenaeus 
says,  were  not  considered  as  belonging  to  the 
Pleroma.*  He  argues  against  the  inconsistency 
of  their  being  excluded  from  it;  nor  does  any 
reason  appear  why  they  were  so.     It  is  to  be 

*  Irenseus,  Lib.  IL  c.  12.  ^  7.  p.   129. 


126  EVIDENCES   OF  THE 

observed,  that  they  could  have  been  separated 
from  the  Pleroma  only  when  that  was  conceived 
of  as  the  Development  of  the  Deity.  In  the 
Pleroma  considered  as  the  Spiritual  Realm  of 
God  they  were  undoubtedly  included.  But 
I  strongly  suspect  that  the  statement  of  Ire- 
naeus  is  a  misapprehension,  founded  perhaps  on 
the  fact  that  the  Valentinians  originally  ac- 
knowledged the  existence  only  of  the  thirty 
JCons  who  have  been  mentioned.*  It  is  not 
probable  that  those  who  adopted  the  system 
of  Ptolemy  excluded  the  other  four  from  the 
Pleroma,  in  either  sense  of  that  word.  We 
shall  hereafter  see  particular  reasons  to  believe 
that  they  did  not.  But  it  is  to  be  observed, 
that  the  Valentinian  iEons  are  commonly  spok- 
en of  as  being  thirty  in  number.  After  enu- 
merating the  iEons  who  have  been  mentioned, 
Tertullian  says,  —  "  This  is  that  mystical  Ple- 
roma, the  plenitude  of  the  thirty-fold  Divinity."! 
The  mystery  of  the  thirty  ^ons  the  Valen- 
tinians believed  to  be  shadowed  forth  by  the 
thirty  years  which  our  Saviour  spent  in  private 


*  The  Author  of  the  Addition  to  Tertullian  (c.  49)  says,  that 
"  Valentinus  fixed  the  number  of  ^ons  at  thirty  "  ;  but  that 
Ptolemy  added  others. 

■f-  "  Hoc  erit  Pleroma  illud  arcanum,  Divinitatis  tricenariae  ple- 
nitudo."     Ad  vers.  Valentinianos,  c.  8.  p.  253. 


GENUINENESS   OF  THE   GOSPELS.  127 

before  commencing  his  ministry ;  and  by  the 
parable  of  the  laborers  who  were  sent  into  the 
vineyard  at  the  first,  third,  sixth,  ninth,  and 
eleventh  hours,  these  numbers  taken  together 
amounting  to  thirty  ;  and,  according  to  Irenaeus, 
they  made  similar  use  of  all  those  passages  in 
Scripture  in  which  numbers  are  mentioned,  so 
far  as  they  could  accommodate  them  to  their 
system.  Of  their  iEons,  generally,  they  found 
abundant  notices  in  the  New  Testament,  where 
a  modern  reader,  unacquainted  with  the  origi- 
nal, would  not  suspect  their  existence  ;  that  is 
to  say,  in  expressions  where  the  Greek  word 
alwv,*  ceon,  occurs.  Thus  they  maintained  that 
the  tEous  were  often  mentioned  by  St.  Paul 
in  the  plainest  manner,  as,  for  instance,  in  his 
Episde  to  the  Ephesians,t  jvhere  the  words 
are  rendered  in  the  Common  Version,  —  "  Unto 
Him  be  glory  in  the  church  by  Christ  Jesus, 
throughout  all  ages,  world  without  end  " ;  which 
words  they  understood  as  meaning,  "  To  Him 
be  glory,  —  throughout  all  the  generations  of 
the  iEon  of  the  iEons,"  J  that  is,  throughout 
all  the  generations  of  the  first  ^on,  God. 


*  "  Age,"  often  rendered  in  the  Common  Version  "  World." 
t  Ch.  iii.  21. 

%  Eis  ndcras  ras  yeveas  rov  almvos  tcov  aia>va>v.      Irenaeus,  Lib.  L 
c.  3.  ^  1.  p.  14  :  where  see  Massuet's  note. 


128  EVIDENCES  OF  THE 

It  is  necessary  to  keep  in  mind,  especially  as 
we  proceed,  that  we  are  treating  of  imagina- 
tions with  which  reason  has  nothing  to  do,  and 
which  cannot  be  brought  into  any  coherence 
with  one  another.  The  derivative  iEons  are 
to  be  regarded,  not  merely  as  attributes  of  .God, 
or  as  Ideas  of  the  Divine  Mind,  but  as  distinct 
persons  capable  of  individual  acts  ;  and  as  be- 
ing, with  the  exception  of  the  Only  Son,  not 
only  imperfect,  but  fallible. 

Thus,  according  to  Ptolemy,  in  the  devel- 
opment of  beings  from  the  Divine  Substance, 
inferior  to  the  Supreme,  there  was  a  commence- 
ment of  imperfection,  and  consequent  disorder, 
which  finally  led  to  the  production  of  the  ma- 
terial world.  Of  the  immediate  origin  of  this 
disorder  the  following  account  is  given.  The 
First  Father,  God,  was  comprehended  by  his 
first  emanation,  the  Only  Son  or  Intellect,  and 
by  him  alone.  He  alone  enjoyed  the  beatific 
vision  of  God.  But  all  the  other  iEons  felt  the 
desire  of  obtaining  the  same  knowledge  ;  es- 
pecially Wisdom,  the  last  and  youngest  of  the 
twelve,  proceeding  from  Man  and  the  Church. 
In  her  the  passion  became  inordinate.  She 
strove  earnestly  to  comprehend  the  greatness 
of  the  Father,  but  it  was  impossible.  The 
depths   of    his    nature    are    unsearchable ;    and 


GENUINENESS  OF  THE  GOSPELS.  129 

she,  urged  on  by  strong  love,  would  at  last  have 
been  swallowed  up  in  them,  and  lost,  had  she 
not  been  restrained  and  held  back  by  an  Mon 
not  before  mentioned,  the  ^on  Horos  or  the 
Boundary.  Being  controlled  by  him,  she  re- 
turned to  herself,  gave  up  her  purpose,  and  was 
restored  to  her  place  in  the  Pleroma. 

The  iEon  just  mentioned,  Horos  or  the  Boun- 
dary, was  an  emanation  from  the  Father,  through 
the  Only  Son.  He  was  without  a  consort.  His 
offices  were  to  give  stability  to  beings,  and  to 
separate  them  from  each  other,  as  by  a  rampart. 
In  reference  to  his  different  employments  many 
different  names  were  given  him,  and  among 
them,  that  of  Xravpo^  (Stauros),  not  in  the 
sense  of  "  cross,"  but  in  that  of  "  rampart." 
Having,  however,  given  him  this  name,  the  Val- 
entinians  had  no  difficulty  in  finding  passages 
of  the  New  Testament  in  which  he  was  re- 
ferred to,  passages  in  which  the  word  aravpd'i, 
"  cross,"  occurs.  Several  examples  of  such  ap- 
plication are  given  by  Irenaeus.  The  Gnostics 
were  able  the  more  readily  to  find  proofs  and 
mystical  intimations  of  their  doctrines  in  the 
New  Testament  from  the  number  of  names 
which  they  gave  to  the  same  Mon,  and  from 
assigning  (as  we  shall  see  hereafter)  the  same 
name  to  different  ^Eons. 

VOL.  III.  17 


130  EVIDENCES  OF  THE 

Wisdom  was  restored  to  her  place  ;  but  the 
agony  of  her  passion  had  given  birth  to  a  shape- 
less female  abortion,  w^hich  was  cast  out  of  the 
Pleroma,  and  whose  future  fortunes  we  shall 
hereafter  have  occasion  to  follow.  Then,  in 
order  to  give  stability  to  the  Pleroma,  and  to 
prevent  other  iEons  from  suffering  as  Wisdom 
had  done,  the  Only  Son,  under  the  direction  of 
the  Father,  emitted  a  new  pair,  Christ  and  the 
Holy  Spirit.  The  office  of  Christ  was  to  give 
them  such  knowledge  concerning  their  own 
nature,  the  Father,  and  the  Only  Son,  as  they 
were  capable  of  receiving.  All  being  placed 
on  an  equality,  the  Holy  Spirit  taught  them 
thanksgiving  and  gave  them  true  peace.  Thus 
all  corresponding  to  each  other  in  form  and 
mind,  each  male  ^on  became  an  Intellect,  a 
Logos,  a  Man,  and  a  Christ ;  and  each  female, 
in  like  manner,  a  Truth,  a  Ldfe,  a  Church,  and 
a  Holy  Spirit*     "  Ovid  might  have  destroyed 


*  Hence  it  appears  that  Christ  and  the  Holy  Spirit,  two  of  the 
four  additional  ^ons  of  Ptolemy,  belonged  to  the  Pleroma  con- 
sidered as  the  Development  of  God.  Nor  is  it  probable,  consid- 
ering the  mode  of  his  derivation,  that  Horos  was  excluded  from 
it ;  nor  that  the  JEon  Jesus  (to  be  immediately  mentioned  above), 
"  the  star  of  the  Pleroma,"  did  not  belong  to  the  Pleroma  in  the 
highest  sense  of  that  word.  It  follows  that  there  can  be  little 
doubt  of  the  incorrectness  of  the  assertion  of  Irenseus  before  men- 
tioned (pp.  125,  126).     I  remark  this  principally  as  affording  one 


GENUINENESS  OF  THE  GOSPELS.  131 

his  Metamorphoses,"  says  Tertullian,  "  if  he 
had  been  acquainted  with  this  greater  metamor- 
phosis." *  In  this  account  of  the  amalgama- 
tion, as  it  were,  of  the  iEons,  the  conception, 
I  suppose,  discovers  itself,  that,  notwithstand- 
ing their  personal  division,  they  are,  under  one 
aspect,  included  in  the  unity  of  the  Father,  as 
being  his  hypostatized  attributes  and  Ideas ; 
and  that  the  jEons,  though  distinct  persons, 
constitute  but  one  Divine  Being.  This,  con- 
sidering all  that  precedes,  it  may  be  said,  is 
an  incredible  imputation  of  absurdity  on  the 
Valentinians.  Perhaps  not.  As  we  may  talk 
of  one  infinite  as  being  less  than  another,  so 
we  may  talk  of  one  doctrine,  though  utterly 
absurd,  as  being  less  absurd  than  another ; 
and  thus  we  may  say  that  the  doctrine  of 
the  Valentinians  is  less  absurd  than  Panthe- 
ism, a  theory  which  has  found  favor  in  modern 
times.  By  "  Pantheism "  I  certainly  do  not 
mean  the  doctrine  that  God  is  in  all  things, 
with  which  of  late  some  have  attempted  to 
confound  it ;  but,  using  the  word  in  its  proper 


among  the  constantly  recurring  proofs  of  the  inaccuracy,  imper- 
fection, and  inconsistency  of  the  accounts  of  the  Gnostics  trans- 
mitted to  us  by  the  fathers. 

*  Advers.  Valentinianos,  c.  12.  p.  255. 


132  EVIDENCES  OF  THE 

sense,  I  mean  the  doctrine  that  all  things  con- 
stitute the  one  God. 

In  return  for  the  new  blessing  which  they 
had  received,  the  iEons,  full  of  joy,  agreed  to- 
gether each  to  contribute  what  was  most  ex- 
cellent in  himself,  and,  uniting  all  their  gifts, 
to  put  forth  in  common  a  new  ^Eon  in  honor 
of  the  Father.  This  being,  who  was  the  per- 
fection, the  star  of  the  Pleroma,  was  denomi- 
nated Jesus  or  the  Saviour.  He  bore  also  the 
patronymic  names  of  Christ  and  the  Logos,  and, 
with  reference  to  the  mode  of  his  production, 
was  likewise  called  All  or  All  things.  With 
him  emanated  angels  of  a  like  nature,  as  his 
attendants. 

Of  the  sufferings  of  Wisdom,  the  last  of  the 
twelve  iEons  proceeding  from  Man  and  the 
Church,  the  Valentinians  found  a  symbol  in  the 
apostasy  of  Judas,  the  twelfth  of  the  Apostles, 
and  in  the  suffering  of  Christ  in  the  twelfth 
month  (as  they  believed)  of  his  ministry.  The 
iEon  Wisdom  was  typified  also  by  the  woman 
who,  having  had  an  issue  of  blood  for  twelve 
years,  was  cured  by  touching  the  fringe  of 
the  Saviour's  garment,  as  Wisdom  was  restored 
upon  touching  the  borders  of  the  first  Qua- 
ternity.  To  the  ^Eon  Jesus,  one  of  whose 
names    was   All   things,    they   applied    various 


GENUINENESS   OF  THE  GOSPELS.  133 

passages  of  Scripture,  specified  by  Irenaeus,  in 
which  all  things  are  mentioned.  And  thus, 
says  Irenaeus,  they  pervert  to  their  purpose 
passages  from  the  Gospels  and  Epistles,  en- 
deavouring to  misinterpret  them  into  proofs  of 
their  doctrine  ;  and  not  only  so,  but  with  much 
subtilty  and  cunning  they  make  the  same  use 
of  the  Law  and  the  Prophets,  in  which  many 
things,  being  said  allegorically,  are  capable,  on 
account  of  the  ambiguity  of  their  meaning,  of 
being  diversely  applied.  The  expositions  of 
the  Valentinians  illustrate  in  some  degree  the 
intellectual  character  of  their  age  ;  but  I  have 
adduced  them  particularly  for  the  purpose  of 
showing  what  constant  use  they  made  of  the 
Scriptures  and  especially  of  the  Gospels. 

Such,  according  to  Ptolemy,  was  the  com- 
mencement and  derivation  of  existences  inferior 
to  the  Supreme.  It  would  be  idle  to  attempt 
to  settle  all  the  questions  that  his  scheme  sug- 
gests, many  of  which,  probably,  he  had  not 
answered  in  his  own  mind,  nor  even  proposed 
to  himself.  But  there  are  several  considera- 
tions that  may  serve  to  throw  some  light 
upon  it. 

In    the   first    place,    then,    the    ^ons    wore 


134  EVIDENCES  OF  THE 

formed  of  the  substance  of  the  Deity,  as  is 
implied  in  their  being  hypostatized  attributes 
or  Ideas  of  the  Divine  Mind.  The  concep- 
tion of  proper  spiritual  existence  was  not  fa- 
miliar to  the  minds  of  the  ancient  philosophers, 
and  had  as  yet,  it  is  probable,  been  attained 
only  by  a  small  portion  of  the  early  Chris- 
tians. As  we  have  seen,  Ptolemy  himself 
taught  that  the  "  substance  of  the  underived 
Father  was  pure  and  uniform  light "  ;  *  and 
this  imagination  appears  to  have  been  com- 
mon.f  It  facilitated  the  conception  of  the  for- 
mation of  other  beings  out  of  his  substance. 
Before  the  introduction  of  Christianity,  as  has 
been  already  implied,!  the  doctrine  of  proper 
creation,  or  of  causing  that  to  be,  the  material 
of  which  did  not  previously  exist,  was  unknown 
to  the  ancient  philosophers.  Matter,  conse- 
quently, was  regarded  as  uncreated  and  eter- 
nal. Those  who  were  not,  as  the  Epicureans, 
simple  materialists,  but  believed,  with  Plato, 
in  mind  as  a  coeternal  principle,  contended 
only  that  the  forms  and  modifications  of  mat- 
ter were  given  to  it  by  a  superior  power  or 
powers.     Primitive    matter   furnished    the    sub- 


*  See  before,  p.  61.  f  See  Additional  Note,  A. 

J  See  before,  p.  50.  • 


GENUINENESS   OF  THE  GOSPELS.  135 

Stance  of  all  things  sensible.  But  in  follow- 
ing out  the  same  principle,  the  substance  of 
spiritual  beings  came  to  be  considered  as  the 
Infinite  Spirit. 

The  doctrine,  that  the  human  intellect  is  a 
portion,  or  efflux,  or  emanation  of  the  Divinity, 
has  been  very  extensively  held.  The  Stoics 
regarded  it  as  a  particle  of  that  ethereal  fire 
which  was,  in  their  view,  the  animating  prin- 
ciple of  all  things,  the  universal  Soul,  God. 
Philo  says  that  every  human  mind  is  allied  to 
the  Divine  Logos  (Intellect),  being  an  impress, 
or  particle,  or  ray  of  that  blessed  nature.* 
"  The  soul,"  he  teaches,  "  proceeded  from  the 
Father  and  Ruler  of  All ;  for  what  he  breathed 
into  man  was  the  divine  spirit,  sent  here  to 
dwell  as  in  a  foreign  land."  f  How  else,  he 
asks,  can  we  account  for  the  wonderful  pow- 
ers of  the  human  mind,  "  if  it  be  not  an  in- 
divisible portion  f  of  the  Divine  and  Blessed 
Soul  ?  For  the  Divine  Nature  is  not  divided  and 
separated,   but  is  only  extended."  §     The  au- 


*  De  Mundi  Opificio.  0pp.  I.  35.  The  word  "  particle  "  does 
not  express  the  force  of  the  original  term  aTrdo-Tracr^a.  See  also 
Legis  Allegorise,  Lib.  IIL  0pp.  L  119. 

t  De  Mundi  Opificio.  p.  32. 
• ;};   "  Portion  "  'ATrdo-Tratr/xa. 

^  Quod  Delerius  Potiori  insidiari  soleat.     0pp.  L  208,  209. 


136  EVIDENCES   OF  THE 

thor  of  the  Clementine  Homilies  says,  that 
"  the  soul,  proceeding  from  God,  is  of  the  same 
substance  with  him  " ;  *  that  is,  consubstantial 
with  him,  according  to  the  technical  language 
of  theology.  Justin  Martyr  says,  —  "  We  are 
allied  to  God,  for  the  soul  is  divine  and  im- 
mortal, and  a  portion  of  the  ruling  Mind  which 
sees  God  •' ;  f  that  is,  of  the  Logos.  Some 
of  the  fathers  who  followed  Justin  adopted  a 
similar  doctrine,  though  it  was  earnestly  op- 
posed by  Clement  of  Alexandria  J  and  others. 
I  mention  these  facts  to  show  that  there  was 
nothing  foreign  from  the  philosophy  of  the 
times  in  the  supposition  of  the  Gnostics,  that 
beings  of  a  higher  order  than  man  were  formed 
from  the  substance  of  God. 

It  may  be  added,  that  the  philosophy  of  the 
Bramins  teaches  that  all  finite  minds  are  but 
portions  of  the  Divine.  Thus  it  is  said  in  one 
of  the  Upanishads,  —  "As  from  a  blazing  fire 
thousands  of  sparks  of  the  same  nature  pro- 
ceed, so  from  the  Eternal  Supreme  Being  va- 
rious souls  come  forth,  and  again  they  return 
into  him."  ^     The   Gnostic    Pleroma,  with  its 

*  Homilia  XVI.  §  16. 

f  Dial,  cum  Tryph.  p.  145. 

X  Stromat.  II.  §  16.  pp.  467,  468.     Stromat.  V.  ^  13.  p.  699. 

§  Rammohun  Roy's  Translation  of  the  Moonduk-Opunishud. 


GENUINENESS  OF  THE  GOSPELS.  137 

^ons  derived  from  the  substance  of  God,  is 
likewise  coincident  with  the  World  of  Emana- 
tions of  the  Jewish  Cabalists,  in  which  ten 
Sephiroths  or  Splendors,  hypostatized  powers  of 
God,  were  conceived  of  by  them  as  emanating, 
like  the  Gnostic  jEons,  from  that  eternal  light, 
which  they,  like  Ptolemy,  regarded  as  consti- 
tuting the  substance  of  God. 

The  derivative  iEons  were  attributes  and 
Ideas  hypostatized  ;  how,  then,  are  we  to  regard 
them  in  their  new  character  as  persons  ?  Con- 
cerning the  manner  of  their  production,  and 
the  mode  of  their  existence,  the  Gnostics,  ac- 
cording to  Irenaeus,  did  not  explain  themselves 
clearly,  a  fact  which  may  be  readily  believed. 
He,  therefore,  undertakes  to  show  that  their 
doctrine  must  be  false,  whatever  notions  they 
might  entertain  on  those  subjects.*  He  sup- 
poses that  the  derivative  ^ons  may  be  com- 
pared to  rays  emitted  from  the  sun,  or  to 
branches  shooting  from  a  tree,  or  to  torches 
lighted  from  one  already  burning.  These  are 
all  illustrations  which  were  used  by  some  of  the 
orthodox  fathers  to  explain  the  emanation,  or, 
as  they  called  it,  the  generation,  of  the  Logos 


*  Lib.  n.  capp.  12,  17. 
18 


138  EVIDENCES  OF  THE 

from  God  ;  —  though  their  application  to  this 
purpose  is  virtually  rejected  by  Irenseus.*  It 
appears,  also,  that  the  Gnostics  compared  their 
JEon  Logos,  proceeding  from  the  ^on  Intellect, 
to  Logos,  that  is,  discourse  (according  to  one 
sense  of  the  term  "  Logos  "),  proceeding  from 
the  human  intellect ;  f  which  was  another  fa- 
vorite figure  of  the  fathers  to  represent  the  gen- 
eration of  the  orthodox  Logos.  The  further 
question  is  raised  by  Irenaeus,  Whether  the 
iEons  were  to  be  considered  as  united  with 
God  after  their  emanation,  or  whether  this  was 
effectual  and  complete,  so  as  to  separate  them 
from  him,  as  the  offspring  of  a  man  is  sepa- 
rate from  its  parent. J  The  epithet  translated 
"  effectual  and  complete,"  he  himself,  though 
inconsistently  with  other  passages  in  his  writ- 
ings, applies  to  the  generation  of  the  Logos. ^ 
The  question  last  mentioned  he  leaves  us  to 
suppose  was,  like  most  of  the  others  he  sug- 
gests,   unanswered    by    the    Valentinians.      He 


*  Ubi  supra,  et  c.  13. 

f  Lib.  II.  c.  13.  ^  8.  p.  131.  See  Statement  of  Reasons, 
p.  283,  seqq. 

J  "  An   [emissi]   pfficabiliter  et  partiliter."     "  Sed  si   quidem 

efficabiliter unusquisque  illorum  omissus  est  secundum  ho- 

minum  similitudinem,"  &c.     Lib.  II.  c.  17.  §i^  2,  3.  p.  138. 

§  He  calls  it  efficabilis  generatio.     Lib.  III.  c.  11.  ^8.  p.  190. 


GENUINENESS  OF  THE  GOSPELS.  139 

proposes  still  another,  Whether  the  ^ons  were 
of  the  substance  of  the  Divinity,  or  of  a  differ- 
ent substance.  But  this  is  evidently  introduced 
rather  for  the  sake  of  exhausting,  by  way  of 
argument,  all  possible  suppositions  relating  to 
the  subject,  than  because  any  real  doubt  existed 
that  the  Gnostics  believed  them  to  be  of  the 
divine  substance. 

But,  after  all  his  discussion  of  the  subject, 
sufficient  reasons  exist  for  believing  that  there 
were  some  imaginations  of  the  Gnostics  re- 
specting the  production  of  their  derivative 
^ons,  which  Irenaeus  has  not  brought  distinctly 
into  view.  There  is  no  connection  between 
our  idea  of  emanation,  or  the  flowing  forth  of 
one  body  from  another,  as  a  ray  from  the  sun, 
and  that  of  the  ordinary  production  of  animals. 
But,  incongruous  as  these  ideas  are,  the  Valen- 
tinians,  it  appears,  confused  them  together. 
This  may  be  inferred  from  their  introduction 
of  female  iEons ;  from  their  supposition  that 
Wisdom,  the  last  of  the  ^ons,  brought  forth 
an  abortive  offspring  without  union  with  her 
spouse  ;  *  and  especially  from  their  account  of 
the  production  of  the  first  derivative  male  ^on, 


*  "  Sine  alterius  complexu."     Irenaeus,  Lib.  IL  c.   12.  §  4. 
p.  128. 


140  EVIDENCES  OF  THE 

the  Only  Son*  But  there  is  other  abundant 
evidence  of  the  fact.  Origen,  in  speaking  of 
the  orthodox  doctrine,  says  that  "  the  Father 
did  not  emit  the  Son,  as  some  think."  The 
term  used  by  him  is  that  which  the  Gnostics  ap- 
plied to  the  production  of  their  iEons.  "  For," 
continues  Origen,  "  if  the  Son  were  an  emis- 
sion of  the  Father,  and  the  Father  generated 
him  from  himself,  as  animals  produce  their  off- 
spring, it  would  follow  that  both  the  emitter 
and  the  emitted  must  be  corporeal."  f  The 
doctrine  of  the  generation  of  the  jEons  is  pre- 
sented, as  I  have  before  remarked,  in  a  very 
gross  form  by  a  writer  whom  Epiphanius  calls 
a  Valentinian  ;  and  Clement  of  Alexandria,  in 
exculpating  the  Valentinians  of  his  time  from 
impurity,  does  so  on  the  ground  that  they  sup- 
posed only  a  spiritual  intercourse  between  the 
yEons.t  Respecting  the  manner  of  their  pro- 
duction, the  Gnostics,  probably,  as  others  in 
like  cases  have  done,  used  language  in  the 
hope  that  it  contained  some  meaning,  without 


*  See  before,  pp.  116,  117. 

■j"  Ytoi)  yivtrai  Ilar^p  ov  Trpo^dXav  avrbv  as  o'wvrai  rives  •  et  yap 
Tvpo^oKrj  fffTiv  6  vlos  rov  Tlarpos,  Koi  yevva  fxev  e'^  ai'TOv,  owoia  to. 
Tcbu  ^acov  yfvvrjp.aTa,  avdyKtj  (Ta[xa  dvai  tov  Trpo^dWovra  Koi  rov 
TTpo^e^'\r]fi(vov.     De  Principiis,  Lib.  IV.  §  28.  0pp.  I.  190. 

t  HvevnaTiicas  iriBevTo  Koivcopias-  —  See  Vol.  II.  pp.  92,  93. 


GENUINENESS  OF  THE  GOSPELS.  141 

having  themselves   any  definite  imagination  of 
what  that  meaning  might  be. 

To  the  association  of  female  ^ons  with  male 
in  the  work  of  emanation  we  find  an  analogy 
in  the  religion  of  the  Bramins,  of  which  it 
is  said  to  be  a  fundamental  principle,  "  that 
an  invisible  and  immaterial  being  cannot  mani- 
fest himself  or  exert  his  power  except  under  a 
corporeal  form,  and  that  the  energies  of  the 
male  must  remain  inoperative  until  rendered 
active  by  a  union  with  the  passive  qualities  of 
the  female.  Hence,  on  willing  creation,  the 
Supreme  Being  necessarily,  in  order  to  effect 
that  object,  first  gave  existence  to  a  male  and 
female,  who  are  known  under  the  names  of 
Purusha  and  Prakriti,  and  which  alone  are 
considered  to  be  the  original  agents  in  the 
formation  of  this  universe."  It  is  added,  that 
these  are  "  corporeal  manifestations  of  his  es- 
sence " ;  and  "  that  all  males,  whether  gods 
or  men,  are  considered  to  be  merely  forms  of 
Purusha,  and  all  females,  forms  of  Prakriti.^^  * 
In  different  words,  these  are  the  hypostatized 
Platonic  Ideas  or  generic  forms,  the  one  of  all 
that  is  male,  the  other  of  all  that  is  female. 


*  Kennedy's  Ancient  and  Hindu  Mythology,  pp.  283,  284. 
See  before,  pp.  119,  120. 


142  EVIDENCES  OF  THE 

Iren^us  objects  to  the  Gnostic  theories,  that 
they  were  founded  on  conceptions  concerning 
the  human  mind  transferred  to  the  Deity.  The 
Valentinians,  as  he  tells  us,  had  formed  notions 
of  the  properties,  conditions,  and  acts  of  the 
mind  of  man,  and,  in  their  ignorance  of  God, 
ascribed  them  to  the  Father  of  All ;  making 
Thought  to  proceed  from  the  Deity,  Intellect 
from  Thought,  and  Reason  (the  Logos)  from 
Intellect.  He  argues  against  this  decompo- 
sition of  the  Deity,  and  the  supposed  emission 
of  those  attributes  as  hypostases,  in  a  manner 
which  bore  equally  against  the  orthodox  doc- 
trine of  the  Logos  as  it  existed  in  the  second 
and  third  centuries.  God,  he  insists,  is  alto- 
gether simple  and  uncompounded,  wholly  in- 
tellect, wholly  reason  [Logos],  wholly  light. 
But  to  suppose  Intellect  to  have  been  emitted 
from  him,  so  as  to  have  a  distinct  existence,  is 
to  suppose  God  a  compound  being.  Whence 
and  where,  he  asks,  was  Intellect  emitted  ? 
What  space  was  there  exterior  to  the  Intellect 
of  God  into  which  it  could  be  sent  forth  ?  *  I 
thus  quote  his  reasoning,  in  an  abridged  form, 
in  order  further  to  illustrate  the  speculations 
of  the  Gnostics,  and,  through  those,   the   style 


*  Lib.  II.  c.  13.     Conf.  c.  14.  §  8. 


GENUINENESS   OF   THE   GOSPELS.  143 

of  speculation   which  existed  in  and   after  the 
time  of  the  Gnostics. 

Tertullian,  in  a  passage  formerly  quoted,  says 
that  ''  Ptolemy  numbered  the  Mons  in  classes, 
and  gave  them  distinct  names,  assigning  to 
them  the  character  of  personal  existences,  but 
external  to  the  Deity;  while  Valentinus  had 
included  those  existences  in  the  totality  of  the 
Divinity  as  feehngs,  affections,  and  emotions."  * 
It  has  been  supposed  that  Tertullian,  in  these 
words,  meant  to  assert  that  Valentinus  did  not 
hypostatize  the  iEons.  But,  if  so,  he  would 
apparently  contradict  himself  in  two  other  pas- 
sages ;  t  and  his  account  would  be  irrecon- 
cilable with  that  of  Irenaeus,t  with  whom  he 
elsewhere  accords  in  his  report  of  the  Valen- 
tinian  doctrines,  and  whom  he  evidently  ap- 
pears to  have  taken  for  a  guide  on  the  subject. 


*  See  Vol.  II.  p.  91,  note. 

t  Advers.  Praxeam,  c.  8,  p.  504.  Advers.  Marcion.  Lib.  I. 
c.  5.  pp.  367,  368.  In  these  passages  Tertullian  represents  Val- 
entinus as  attributing  a  proper  personal  existence  to  the  .^Eons. 
Thus,  in  the  first  passage  referred  to,  he  says  :  —  "  Valentinus 
probolas  suas  discernit  et  separat  ab  auctore."  But  he  may,  ac- 
cording to  a  use  of  language  not  uncommon  in  the  fathers,  have 
intended  to  denote  the  sect  of  the  Valentinians  by  the  name  of 
A  alentinus,  and  thus  have  ascribed  to  him  individually  opinions 
held  only  by  his  followers. 

t  Irenseus,  Lib.  I.  c.  11.  p.  52,  seqq. 


144  EVIDENCES  OF  THE 

It  may  be,  therefore,  that  Tertullian  here  as- 
cribes to  Valeiitinus  an  opinion  mentioned  by 
Irenseus  (hypothetically,  as  one  that  might  be 
entertained  by  the  Gnostics),  according  to  which 
the  iEons  were  not  properly  emitted,  but  re- 
mained within  the  Father,  as  circles  one  within 
another,  all  surrounded  by  him.*  But,  what- 
ever were  the  meaning  of  Tertullian  in  regard 
to  Valentinus,  there  is  no  doubt  that  the  the- 
osophic  Gnostics,  generally,  regarded  their  ^ons 
as  hypostases.  In  another  place  Tertullian  de- 
scribes them  as  Platonic  Ideas,t  a  represen- 
tation altogether  consistent  with  the  fact  just 
stated.  Philo,  in  like  manner,  gives  the  name 
of  Ideas  to  the  hypostatized  powers  of  God, 
considering  them  as  the  formative  principles  of 
all  things. I 

The  conception  of  hypostatized  attributes 
and  Ideas  of  the  Divine  Mind  is  one  which 
has  most  extensively  prevailed.  Turning  from 
the  Gnostics,  we  perceive  it  in  the  specula- 
tions of  the  catholic  Christians  concerning  the 
Logos  and  the  Holy  Spirit ;  in  those  of  Philo 


*  Lib.  II.  c.  13.  §§6,7.  p.  131. 

t  De  Anima,  c.  18.  pp.  276,  277. 

^  See  Statement  of  Reasons,  p.  262,  seqq. 


GENUINENESS  OF  THE  GOSPELS.  145 

concerning    the    Powers    of    God ;  in  the   Se- 
phiroths   of   the   Jewish    Cabala ;    and    in    the 
philosophy   of  the   later   Platonists.      We   dis- 
cern it  in   the   ancient  Persian   theology ;    and 
it  is  displayed   with  the  broadest  extravagance 
in  the  religion  of  the  Hindus.     The  coinciden- 
ces  between   the    speculations   of   the    Hindus 
and  of  the    theosophic    Gnostics    are    very   re- 
markable.    Some    of  them    have    been    merely 
touched  upon.      In  the  "  Institutes   of  Menu," 
in  the  first  chapter,  the  doctrine  of  emanation 
is  unfolded   into  a  scheme  which  bears  a  strik- 
ing  resemblance    to    that  of   the  Valentinians, 
in  its  general  character  and  in  some  of  its  de- 
tails.    In  that  work,  which,  though  much  less 
ancient,    perhaps,    than    even    some    European 
scholars   have    supposed,   has   yet   certainly  for 
many   centuries    been    regarded    as    of    divine 
authority  by  the  Hindu  sages,  the  system  pre- 
sented is,   to  say   the  least,   as  remarkable    as 
that  of  Ptolemy,   for    the    extravagance    of  its 
imaginations,   for  the    absence  of  any    founda- 
tion  in  what  is  known  or  knowable,   and   for 
a   series   of   conceptions    from   which   it   could 
not  be  inferred  that  reason  is  a  faculty  of  the 
human  mind. 

In   the   systems  founded  on   the   doctrine  of 

VOL.    III.  19 


146  EVIDENCES  OF  THE 

emanation,  incongruous  as  they  are  throughout, 
there  is  nothing  more  extraordinary  than  the 
personal  characters  sometimes  ascribed  to  the 
hypostatized  attributes  and  Ideas  of  the  Deity. 
They  are  not  only  represented  as  beings  far 
inferior  to  God,  a  notion  in  which,  however 
incomprehensible,  the  imagination  may  acqui- 
esce, and  by  which  the  feeHngs  are  not  shocked ; 
but  they  are  sometimes  represented  as  ignorant, 
fallible  beings,  capable  of  suffering.  Such  they 
appear  in  the  system  of  Ptolemy,  particularly 
in  the  case  of  Wisdom,  the  last  of  the  female 
JEons.  In  tne  popular  religion  of  the  Hindus 
the  extravagance  becomes  outrageous  ;  for  the 
most  abominable  fables  are  related  even  con- 
cerning the  three  immediate  manifestations  of 
the  Supreme  Being,  Brahma,  Siva,  and  Vishnu. 
As  regards  the  aberrations  and  sufferings  as- 
cribed to  Wisdom  in  the  Valentinian  scheme, 
we  may  in  some  degree  reconcile  our  imagina- 
tion to  them,  if  we  conceive  of  this  Mon,  as 
we  probably  should,  not  certainly  as  the  proper 
Wisdom  of  God  hypostatized,  but  as  the  hypos- 
tatized Idea  of  human  wisdom. 

In  this  notion,  that  a  being  who  is  an  hypos- 
tatized attribute  or  Idea  of  the  Divine  Mind 
may  he  capable  of  suffering,  there  was  a  strange 
coincidence  —  a   coincidence    where  we   might 


GENUINENESS  OF  THE  GOSPELS.  147 

least  have  expected  it  —  between  the  opinions 
of  the  Vahmtinians  and  those  of  some  of  the 
more  eminent  early  fathers.  These  fathers  be- 
lieved that  the  Logos,  that  is,  the  hypostatized 
Reason,  or  Wisdom,  of  God,  was  the  proper 
sufferer  in  the  sufferings  of  Christ.*  The  fact 
becomes  the  more  remarkable,  when  we  find 
that  the  theosophic  Gnostics,  though  they  agreed 
with  the  fathers  referred  to  in  the  general  prin- 
ciple, that  an  hypostatized  being  belonging  to 
the  Divine  Nature  might  suffer,  started  wide 
asunder  from  them  in  this  application  of  it,  and 
maintained  that  the  Divine  Being  or  ^on,  who 
was  united  with  the  man  Jesus,  did  not  suffer 
with  him,  but  left  him  and  returned  to  the  Ple- 
roma  before  the  crucifixion.  The  Marcionites 
regarded  the  apparent  body  of  Christ  as  a  mere 
phantom  incapable  of  suffering.  In  opposition 
to  these  doctrines  of  the  Gnostics,  those  fathers 
insisted  that  the  Logos  himself  truly  suffered  in 
the  body  in  which  he  was  incarnate.  The  doc- 
trine was  not  at  once  universally  assented  to. 
Clement  of  Alexandria  vacillates  concerning  it ; 
and  Origen  did  not  adopt  it.  But,  losing  all 
sense  and  vitality,  and  growing  into  a  shape  still 
more    monstrous,    it   finally   prevailed ;    and   its 

*  See  Statement  of  Reasons,  Section  V.  p.  62,  seqq. 


148  EVIDENCES  OF  THE 

ghastly  spectre  still  haunts  the  Christian  world. 
The  doctrine  in  its  latest  form,  if  we  may 
give  the  name  of  doctrine  to  words  utterly 
without  meaning,  is,  that  God  himself  suf- 
fered. 

In  order  to  apprehend,  as  far  as  possible,  the 
fancies  of  the  Valentinians,  it  may  be  observed 
that  their  scheme  of  the  Pleroma  is  a  sort  of 
allegory,  blended  with  certain  philosophical  spec- 
ulations of  their  age,  and  transformed  into  a 
system  of  opinions.  A  great  part  of  it  consists 
of  figures  of  speech  arrested  and  fixed  as  proper 
conceptions.  That  God,  before  the  existence 
of  other  beings,  dwelt  alone  with  Thought,  or 
Benevolence,  or  Silence ;  that,  in  the  production 
of  those  beings,  his  Mind  (IV0O9,  Intellect)  was 
first  put  forth  and  manifested  externally ;  that 
Truth  is  an  eternal  attribute  of  the  operations 
of  the  Divine  Mind ;  that  the  Power  by  which 
all  things  are  formed  and  disposed,  Logos,  or 
Reason,  or  the  Disposing  Power,  proceeds  from, 
or  is  a  manifestation  of,  the  same  Mind  of  God ; 
and  that  this  Power  is  the  source  of  Life  to  all 
beings  produced  by  it,  are  propositions  suffi- 
ciently intelligible,  though  presenting  an  arti- 
ficial and  strange  arrangement  of  conceptions. 
These  propositions  appear  to  form  the  ground- 


GENUINENESS  OF  THE  GOSPELS.  149 

work  of  the  theory  of  the  Valentinians.  We 
next  find  them  regardmg  the  Logos  or  Reason 
of  God  as  the  archetype  of  Man,  Man  being 
formed  in  the  image  of  God  as  regards  his 
reason  alone.  Under  this  aspect  the  Logos 
becomes,  as  he  is  represented  by  Philo,  the 
generic  Idea  of  Man ;  and  the  great  end  of 
Man's  being  is  to  be  united  with  the  true  wor- 
shippers of  God,  or  the  Church.  We  have  here 
the  first  eight  ^ons,  the  primitive  Ogdoad,  of 
the  Valentinians.  Then  follow  the  two  series 
of  ten  and  twelve  iEons,  in  which,  as  we  may 
conjecture,  are  respectively  represented  the  at- 
tributes belonging  to,  and  the  effects  produced 
by,  the  Logos,  viewed  first  in  relation  to  the  uni- 
verse, and  afterwards  in  relation  to  the  Church. 

The  Valentinians,  however,  would  probably 
have  been  little  satisfied  with  an  explanation  of 
their  theory,  which,  throwing  a  part  of  it  into 
the  shade,  and  restoring,  as  far  as  possible,  a 
figurative  character  to  their  language,  should 
have  converted  it  into  nothing  more  than  an 
obscure  expression  of  common  thoughts,  un- 
naturally adjusted  together.  They  professed, 
according  to  Irenaeus,  to  teach  "  wonderful  and 
unspeakable  and  deep  mysteries,  known  only 
to  themselves."  *     There  is  no  doubt  that  they 

*  Lib.  1.  c.  1.  ^  3.  p.  7  ;  c.  4.  ^  3.  p.  20. 


150  EVIDENCES   OF   THE 

spoke  of  their  doctrines  in  terms  which  might 
have  given  sufficient  warning  that  the  subject 
was  not  one  for  the  understanding  to  intrude 
upon ;  and  that  their  mysteries  were  to  be  dis- 
cerned only  by  the  internal  power  of  vision, 
which  belonged  exclusively  to  themselves  as  the 
spiritual. 

Such  was  the  system  of  the  Ptolemseo- 
Valentinians  respecting  the  Pleroma,  or,  in 
other  words,  respecting  the  Deity  and  his  ema- 
nations. Systems  very  similar  to  it  appear  to 
have  been  held  by  most  of  the  theosophic  Gnos- 
tics. To  enter  into  a  detailed  examination  of 
their  varieties,  founded  on  the  imperfect,  ques- 
tionable, confused,  and  contradictory  informa- 
tion that  remains  to  us,  would  be  wholly  foreign 
from  our  present  purpose ;  and,  were  it  not  so, 
would  be,  for  the  most  part,  a  useless  and  un- 
satisfactory discussion,  repaying  in  no  degree 
the  toil  of  the  inquiry.  These  visionary  and 
baseless  speculations  were,  from  their  nature, 
unfixed  and  changing.  The  system  of  euiana- 
tions  was  continually  receiving  new  modifica- 
tions from  the  different  individuals  by  whom  it 
was  adopted.  "  Many,  nay,  all  of  them,"  says 
Irenseus,  "  separate  from  the  heresy  in  which 
they  were,  through  a  desire  of  being  teachers, 


GENUINENESS  OF  THE  GOSPELS.  151 

and  proceed  to  advance  something  new."  *  But 
generally  the  fundamental  principles  of  the 
theosophic  Gnostics,  and  their  modes  of  phi- 
losophizing, were  the  same,  and  their  variations 
from  each  other  rarely  appear  to  have  been 
such  as  to  make  them  an  object  of  any  interest 
or  curiosity.  According  to  an  ancient  proverb, 
quoted  by  Irenaeus,t  —  "  It  is  not  necessary  to 
drain  the  ocean  to  learn  that  its  waters  are 
salt."  The  proverb  is  applicable  to  many 
other  speculations  besides  those  of  the  Gnos- 
tics, and  to  many  volumes  that  might  other- 
wise present  themselves  before  us  in  formidable 
array. 

I  HAVE,  however,  in  the  preceding  part  of  this 
work,  had  occasion  several  times  to  mention  the 
Basilidians ;  and  though  their  peculiar  opinions, 
so  far  as  they  may  be  learned  or  conjectured 
from  such  information  as  remains  to  us,  throw 
but  little  additional  light  on  the  general  charac- 
ter of  the  theosophic  Gnostics,  yet  there  are  one 
or  two  questions  concerning  them  of  some  inter- 
est. I  shall,  therefore,  speak  of  them  in  a  Note 
at  the  end  of  this  volume. J 


*  Lib.  L  c.  28.  ^  1.  p.  106.  —  See  Vol.  H.  p.  34. 
t  Lib.  n.  c.  19.  ^  8.  p.  144. 
X  See  Additional  Note,  B. 


152  EVIDENCES  OF  THE 

But  there  is  one  other  sect  that  may  here 
deserve  a  brief  notice.  It  is  that  of  the 
Marcosians,  of  vs^hose  system  Irengeus  gives 
as  full  an  account  as  of  that  of  the  Ptolemaeo- 
Valentinians ;  *  probably  because,  as  he  men- 
tions, they  prevailed  particularly  in  his  neigh- 
bourhood, on  the  Rhone.f  Epiphanius  has 
transcribed  his  account ;  but  neither  he,  nor 
any  other  writer,  affords  any  additional  knowl- 
edge concerning  them.  They  were  a  branch 
of  the  great  body  of  the  Valentinians.  The 
general  outline  of  their  system  of  emanations 
was  similar  to  that  of  Ptolemy.  What  was 
most  peculiar  to  them  was  their  connecting  it 
with  speculations,  utterly  unintelligible,  con- 
cerning the  mysterious  powers  and  relations  of 
words  and  letters.  To  these  speculations  an 
analogy,  which  we  shall  hereafter  notice,  may 
be  found  in  the  Jewish  Cabala.  They  were 
allied  also  to  the  cathoHc  doctrine  concerning 
the  Logos ;  %  according  to  which  the  Logos, 
existing  in  God  as  his  internal  Reason  or  Dis- 
course (conformably  to  a  now  obsolete  signifi- 
cation of  the  word  Discourse,  in  which  it  was 
synonymous  with  Reason),  was  generated    by 

*  Lib.  I.  capp.  13  -  21.  pp.  59  -  98. 

t  Ibid.  c.  13.  ^  7.  p.  65.  %  Ibid.  c.  14.  ^  1.  p.  66. 


GENUINENESS  OF  THE  GOSPELS.  153 

him  as  a  person,  and  became  his  uttered  Dis- 
course or  Word.* 

The  system  of  the  Marcosians  is  an  object 
of  some  curiosity,  as  affording  one  of  the  most 
remarkable  among  ancient  examples  of  the 
depths  of  mysticism  (a  term  that,  in  philo- 
sophical language,  is  the  euphemism  for  non- 
sense) into  which  the  mind  may  sink,  and  there 
revel.  As  their  speculations,  which  fill  page 
after  page  in  Irenaeus,  relate  to  Greek  words 
and  letters,  it  is  difficult  to  detach  a  portion  of 
them  which  may  be  clothed  throughout  in  an 
English  dress.  But  the  following  passage  may 
suffice.  Ireneeus  had  before  him  some  work  or 
works,  apparently  of  Marcus,  the  founder  of 
the  sect,  from  which  he  copied  or  abstracted 
his  account;  and  he  has  given  the  words  of 
his  original. 

"  Know  that  your  twenty-four  letters  are 
effluences,  which  present  images  of  the  three 
Powers  that  include  the  whole  number  of  the 
elements  above.  Understand  that  the  nine 
mutes  are  of  the  Father  and  Truth,  because 
they  are  without  sound ;  that  is,  unspeakable 
and  inexpressible.  But  the  eight  semivowels 
are  of  the  Logos  and  Life ;  because  they  are. 


*  See  Statement  of  Reasons,  p.  283,  seqq. 
VOL.  III.  20 


154  EVIDENCES   OF  THE 

as  it  were,  intermediate  between  the  mutes  and 
the  vocals  (the  vowels)  ;  and  as  they  are  effluent 
from  those  above  them,  so  those  below  them 
bear  a  like  relation  to  them.  The  vocals  (vow- 
els), being  seven,  are  of  Man  and  the  Church. 
For  a  voice  proceeding  from  the  Man  gave 
form  to  all  things ;  for  the  sound  of  the  voice 
clothed  them  with  form."  * 

In  like  manner  with  the  Marcosians,  and  in 
the  same  spirit,  the  Jewish  Cabalists,  accord- 
ing to  Basnage,  discoursed  of  the  letters  of  the 
Hebrew  alphabet.  "  Every  letter,"  they  said, 
"  has  some  relation  to  the  Sephiroths  or  Splen- 
dors [the  first  emanations  from  the  Divinity], 
or  to  the  works  of  God."  Thus,  for  example, 
the  first  letter  of  the  alphabet  "indicates  the 
inaccessible  light  of  the  Divinity.  It  is  related 
to  the  first  of  the  Sephiroths."  "  It  infolds 
likewise  other  great  mysteries,"  which  it  is  un- 
necessary to  detail.  "  The  first  ten  letters  an- 
swer to  the  ten  Sephiroths,  and  the  other  letters 
have  other  uses."  "  The  world  was  created 
with  reference  to  the  Hebrew  alphabet,  and 
the  harmony  of  the  creatures  is  like  that  of  the 
letters  which  God  employed  in  composing  the 
Book  of  Life.     A  certain  assemblage  of  letters 

*  Irenaeus,  Lib.  I.  c.  14.  ^  5.  p.  70. 


GENUINENESS   OF  THE  GOSPELS.  165 

causes  the  beauty  and  excellence  of  the  uni- 
verse;  and,  since  the  world  was  made  with 
reference  to  the  alphabet,  certain  things  must 
necessarily  be  attached  to  every  letter,  and  of 
these  things  it  is  the  symbol  and  emblem."^ 
Perhaps  the  mysticism  of  the  Cabalists  would 
be  better  brought  out  by  saying,  that  in  these 
things  the  letter  exerts  its  power. 

Besides  the  mysterious   powers  and  relations 


*  Histoire  des  Juifs,  Liv.  III.  ch.  11.     Tom.  III.  p.  301,  seqq. 

Ed.   1716.     See  also  Ch.  13. There  is  a  truly  remarkable 

analogy  between  the  general  notions  of  the  Cabalists  respecting 
the  powers  of  the  letters  —  an  analogy  extending  even  to  some 
of  the  details  into  which  they  entered,  as  given  by  Basnage  — 
and  what  is  stated  to  be  found  in  the  Hindu  Tantras.  According 
to  a  writer  in  "  The  Friend  of  India  "  (Vol.  III.  p.  616),  it  is  the 
doctrine  of  the  Tantras  concerning  one  of  the  Sanscrit  vowels, 
that  "  it  is  an  astonishing  letter,  it  is  bright  as  the  shell  of  Vish- 
noo,  it  is  full  of  the  three  gods  and  of  the  five  souls  ;  it  is  in  fact 
Bhwguvwtee  herself. ' '  Of  another  letter  it  is  said ,  —  "  The  stroke 
on  the  left  is  Brwhma ;  the  lower  stroke  is  Vishnoo  ;  the  perpen- 
dicular Une  Shiva ;  the  horizontal,  SwrwswMtee ;  the  curve  is 
Bhwgwvwtee.  The  space  in  the  centre  is  Shiva."  "  This  letter 
bestows  liberation ;  it  produces  wealth  and  holiness  ;  it  is  the  root 
of  all  letters  ;  it  is  the  feminine  energy  of  nature,  and  the  mother 
of  all  gods.  In  the  upper  angle  resides  the  wife  of  Brwhma,  in 
the  middle  angle  Vishnoo's  wife  Jistha,  in  the  lower  Shiva's  wife 
Roudree  ;  it  is  the  soul  of  all  knowledge  ;  the  soul  of  the  four 
casts,  the  origin  of  Brwhma's  power  to  desire,  of  Vishnoo's  power 
to  know,  and  of  the  active  energy  of  Shiva  ;  therefore  is  it  to  be 
perpetually  praised."  —  In  this  manner,  it  is  said  by  the  writer  of 
the  article  from  which  I  quote,  are  the  character  and  qualities  of 
all  the  vowels  and  consonants  described. 


156  EVIDENCES  OF  THE 

of  letters,  Marcus  likewise  introduced  those  of 
numbers  into  his  system.  But  speculations  on 
the  respective  powers  of  different  numbers  were 
a  common  extravagance  among  the  ancient 
philosophers  from  a  very  early  period  ;  —  we 
might  say  from  the  time  of  Pythagoras,  if  the 
accounts  of  his  life  and  doctrines  were  not, 
for  the  greater  part,  fabulous,  so  that  little  can 
be  affirmed  with  confidence  concerning  him. 
Such  speculations  were  fundamental  in  the  phi- 
losophy of  those  who  were  called  Pythagoreans, 
when  Aristotle  wrote.*"  Few  subjects  in  an- 
cient times  have  yielded  a  heavier  crop  of  mys- 
ticism than  what  might  be  gathered  from  nu- 
merous writers  concerning  the  marvellous  pow- 
ers and  relations  of  numbers. 

As  is  a  common  case,  the  pretensions  of 
Marcus  were  as  monstrous  as  his  absurdities. 
There  seems  no  reason  to  doubt,  or  to  explain 
away,  the  account  of  Irenaeus,  according  to 
whom  Marcus  affirmed,  that  "  the  first  Quater- 
nity  of  ^ons,  which  is  high  above  all,  had 
descended  to  him,  from  places  invisible  and 
unspeakable,  in  the  form  of  a  woman,  —  for, 
he  said,  its  masculine  form  the  world  could  not 

*  Aristot.  Metaphysic.  Lib.  T.  capp.  5,  6. 


GENUINENESS  OF  THE  GOSPELS.  157 

support,  —  and  revealed  to  him  its  own  nature 
and  the  origin  of  all  things,  which  it  had  never 
revealed  before  to  any  one  of  the  gods  or 
men."  * 

Marcus  himself,  like  Simon  Magus  and  Apol- 
lonius  of  Tjana,  appears  to  have  belonged  to 
the  class  of  religious  mountebanks,  —  individu- 
als claiming  extraordinary  inspiration  and  mar- 
vellous powers,  who  were  not  very  uncommon 
during  the  first  two  centuries  of  our  era  ;  and 
who,  with  characters  modified  by  the  differ- 
ence of  circumstances,  have  shown  themselves 
more  or  less  conspicuously  at  other  periods 
down  to  our  own.  According  to  Iren^us,  who 
represents  himself  as  speaking  from  personal 
knowledge,  he  was  an  impostor,  a  man  of 
bad  morals,  and  a  pretender  to  magic.f  He 
claimed,  as  we  have  seen,  that  a  revelation 
had  been  made  to  him  of  a  far  higher  charac- 
ter than  that  made  to  Christ.  Such  being  the 
case,  he  may  have  imposed  upon  and  deluded 
some  Christians,  who  in  becoming  his  follow- 
ers may  not  altogether  have  forfeited  their  title 
to  the  Christian  name.  But  there  seems  no 
doubt  that  a  majority  of  his  sect  had  no  more 


*  Cont.  Haeres.  Lib.  I.  c.  14.  §  1.  p.  66. 
t  Lib.  I.  c.  13. 


158  GENUINENESS  OF  THE  GOSPELS. 

claim  to  it  than  the  Carpocratians  or  the  Ophi- 
ans.  The  sect,  indeed,  appears  to  have  been 
confined  in  its  sphere,  and  short-lived  ;  for  it 
attracted  no  attention  from  any  other  eminent 
writer  besides  Irenseus  during  the  first  three 
centuries. 

Having,  in  vrhat  precedes,  taken  a  view  of 
the  Gnostic  Pleroma,  as  exhibited  by  Ptolemy, 
in  its  most  perfect  development,  we  shall  now 
go  on  to  the  formation  of  things  without  the 
Pleroma,  still  following  him  as  our  guide. 


CHAPTER  VIII. 

(continued.) 


ON     THE     PECULIAR     SPECULATIONS     OF     THE     THEOSOPHIC 
GNOSTICS. 


Section  III. 

On   their   Speculations  concerning   the   Formation  of  the 
Visible    Universe. 

I  PROCEED  with  the  system  of  the  Valen- 
tinians,  as  modified  by  Ptolemy.*  In  what 
follows  I  shall  give  merely  its  outline,  for  it 
would  be  useless  to  dwell  on  its  detail,  and 
shall  state  a  few  doubtful  and  unimportant 
points  in  the  manner  which  seems  to  me  most 
probably  correct,  without  reference  to  the  dif- 
ferent opinions  that  have  been  maintained. 

In  consequence,  as  related  in  the  last  Sec- 
tion, of  the  sufferings  of  the  ^on    Wisdom,  a 


*  The  account  which  follows  is  derived  from  the  fourth,  fifth, 
sixth,  and  seventh  Chapters  of  the  First  Book  of  Irenaeus.  The 
statements  of  Irenaeus  are  confirmed  in  great  part  by  the  "  Doc- 
trina  Orientalis."  §§  43-65. 


160  EVIDENCES  OF  THE 

female  abortion  was  produced  by  her,  that  was 
cast  out  of  the  Pleroma.  This  offspring  of 
Wisdom  was  formless,  and  devoid  of  compre- 
hension, but  had  the  spiritual  essence  of  an 
JEon.  She  was  raised  (as  we  shall  see)  from 
her  imperfect  state,  and  was  then  called,  after 
her  mother,  Wisdom ;  but  seems  more  com- 
monly to  have  been  denominated  Achamoth, 
a  name  derived  from  the  Hebrew,  signifying 
wisdom.  The  JEon  Christy  taking  compassion 
on  her,  extended  himself  for  her  relief  over 
"  the  Boundary  "  *  of  the  Pleroma.  He  gave 
her  form  and  consciousness  ;  but  did  not  endue 
her  with  knowledge.  He  then  withdrew  and 
left  her,  that  she  might  awaken  to  a  sense 
of  her  deprivation  in  being  separated  from 
the  Pleroma,  and  feel  an  eager  longing  after 
higher  things.  Accordingly,  she  strove  to  at- 
tain the  light  by  which  she  had  been  desert- 
ed ;  but  was  restrained  by  the  iEon  Horos. 
Thus  remaining  alone,  she  became  the  prey 
of  various  contending  passions,  sorrow,  fear, 
perplexity,  accompanied  by  ignorance,  and  a 
yearning  after  him  who  had  given  her  con- 
sciousness. 

In    these   circumstances   she    implored    a  re- 

*  The  iEon  Horos.     See  before,  p.  129. 


GENUINENESS  OF  THE  GOSPELS.         161 

newal  of  the  favor  of  Christ ;  and  he'sent  the 
JEon  Saviour,  or  Jesus,  to  her  assistance.  This 
^Eon  separated  the  passions  of  Achamoth  from 
her,  and  mingled  them  with  and  united  them 
to  primitive  matter.  Mingled  with  this,  they 
became  the  essential  forms  of  matter.  At  the 
same  time,  her  yearning  after  Christ  gave  be- 
ing to  the  substance  of  all  souls,  considered  as 
not  spiritual,  but  as  rational.  We  have  no  word 
in  English  proper  to  describe  this  substance. 
I  shall,  therefore,  denote  it  by  a  term  borrowed 
directly  from  its  epithet  in  Greek,*  and  call 
it  "  psychical."  f 

In  this  manner  the  elements  of  things  were 
formed  by  the  ^on  Saviour,  who  is  accord- 
ingly, in  one  sense,  to  be  considered  as  the 
maker  of  the  visible  universe  ;  the  Valentini- 
ans  applying  to  him  the  words  of  St.  Paul,  — 
"  For  by  him  were  all  things  created,  visible 
and  invisible."  Achamoth,  in  the  mean  time, 
had  brought  forth  a  substance  of  the  same 
essence  with  herself,  that  is,  spiritual.  Thus 
three  sorts  of  substances  now  existed  without 
the  Pleroma,  —  spiritual,  psychical,  and  material. 
The    Saviour    gave    instructions    to    Achamoth 


t  Cud  worth  uses  the  epithet  "  soulish." 

VOL.    III.  21 


162  EVIDENCES  OF  THE 

how  to  proceed  in  the  work  of  creation,  and 
departed. 

Again  left  alone,  she  found  herself  unable 
to  give  form  to  the  spiritual  substance  which 
she  had  produced.  Taking  therefore  the  psy- 
chical, she  fashioned  the  immediate  Creator  of 
the  world,  the  god  of  the  Jews.  Under  the 
secret  direction  of  his  mother,  of  whose  exist- 
ence he  was  ignorant,  and  of  whose  guidance 
he  was  unconscious,  he  became  the  former 
of  all  animal  and  material  things,  the  God 
and  Father  of  the  new  creation.  Through  the 
operation  of  Achamoth,  instructed  by  the  iEon 
Saviour,  there  resulted  a  correspondence  be- 
tween the  things  without  and  those  within 
the  Pleroma ;  Achamoth,  herself,  correspond- 
ing to  the  Infinite  Being,  and  the  Creator  to 
the  Only  Son. 

The  Creator  made  seven  heavens,*  each 
informed  by  an  angel ;  he  himself  animating 
one,  as  I  conceive,  and  being  over  all.  There 
can  be  little  doubt  (as  I  have  before  observ- 
ed t),  that,  in  the '  conception  of  these  seven 
heavens  animated  by  angels,  we  find  the  com- 
mon philosophical  notion  of  the  ancients  re- 
specting the  seven  heavenly  bodies  of  our  sys- 


*  Oiipavovs.  f  See  before,  p.  22. 


GENUINENESS  OF  THE  GOSPELS.  163 

tern,  which  they  regarded  as  the  glorious  ve- 
hicles of  divine  intelligences  ruling  over  the 
affairs  of  this  world.  But  the  Valentinians 
likewise  considered  those  seven  angels,  togeth- 
er with  Achamoth,  as  corresponding  to  the  first 
Ogdoad  of  the  jEons.* 

Achamoth  now  dwelt  in  "  the  Middle  Space  " 
(perhaps  the  orb  of  the  fixed  stars)  between 
the  new  heavens  of  the  Creator  and  the  Ple- 
roma.  The  Creator  was  ignorant  of  the  ex- 
istence of  any  beings  of  a  higher  order  than 
himself.  Having  only  a  psychical,  not  a  spir- 
itual, nature,  he  wanted  power  to  comprehend 
what  was  spiritual.  He  fancied  himself  the 
origin  of  all  things,  the  only  God  ;  and  thus 
announced  himself  by  his  prophets  of  the  Old 
Testament,  through  whom  he  said,  —  "I  am 
God,  and  beside  me  there  is  no  other."  f 

I  pass  over  the  account  given  by  Irenaeus 
of  the  notions  of  Ptolemy  respecting  the  for- 
mation of  the  Devil,  which  we  have  before  ad- 
verted to,  and  found  occasion  to  regard  as 
essentially  incorrect.  { 


*  In  this  paragraph  I  depart,  in  some  particulars,  too  unimpor- 
tant to  be  dwelt  upon,  from  the  words  of  Irenaeus,  and  give  what, 
I  suppose,  must,  from  the  nature  of  the  case,  have  been  the  mean- 
ing of  Ptolemy. 

f  See  before,  pp.  5,  6,  J  See  before,  p.  59,  seqq. 


164  EVIDENCES  OF  THE 

We  come,  therefore,  next  to  the  creation  of 
Adam.  First,  an  earthy  substance  was  formed 
bj  the  Creator,  not,  however,  of  the  dust  of 
the  earth,  but  of  invisible,  floating  matter. 
This  was  a  soul,  or  principle  of  life,  similar 
to  that  of  brutes.  Into  this  vehicle  the  Cre- 
ator breathed  a  rational  (psychical)  soul  of 
the  same  essence  with  himself;  and  the  whole 
was  afterward  clothed  with  a  covering  of  flesh, 
a  body  formed  of  the  earth.  But  into  the 
rational  soul  which  proceeded  from  the  Cre- 
ator, Achamoth,  unknown  to  him,  infused  a 
portion  of  the  spiritual  substance  which  she  had 
produced,  a  leaven  of  immortality,  a  spirit. 

From  Adam,  thus  formed,  proceeded  three 
races  of  men,  corresponding  to  the  three  parts 
of  his  incorporeal  nature  ;  the  earthy  and  ir- 
rational, as  Cain  ;  the  psychical,  or  rational,  as 
Abel ;  and  the  spiritual,  as  Seth  ;  the  spiritual 
principle  being  always  derived  from  Acha- 
moth. The  first  are,  from  their  nature,  des- 
tined to  perish ;  the  second  have  the  power 
of  choice,  and,  as  they  incline  themselves  to 
good  or  evil,  may  be  saved  or  lost ;  the  last,  as 
spiritual,  are  secure  of  obtaining  the  blessed- 
ness of  the  Pleroma.  To  this  class  the  theo- 
sophic  Gnostics  regarded  themselves  as  belong- 
ing.    From    their   spiritual    nature,   which   was 


GENUINENESS  OF  THE  GOSPELS.  165 

superior  to  that  of  the  Creator,  thej  were  capa- 
ble of  understanding  the  mysteries  which  they 
taught,  and  of  which  he  had  been  ignorant. 
Other  Christians  belonged  to  the  second  class. 
These  were  to  attain  salvation  by  simple  faith 
and  good  works. 

In  reference,  I  suppose,  to  the  communica- 
tion by  Achamoth  of  the  spiritual  principle  to 
men,  by  which  they  became  inspired,  the  name 
"  Holy  Spirit "  was  given  her  by  the  Valen- 
tinians. 

To  remedy  the  disorders  and  evils  of  which 
he  himself  was  sensible,  the  Creator  had  de- 
termined to  send  a  Saviour.  Him  he  had 
predicted  by  the  Jewish  prophets.  But  to 
restore  the  order  of  the  universe,  a  higher 
interposition  was  necessary  than  that  of  the 
Creator.  At  the  baptism  of  his  Christ,  the 
iEon  Saviour  descended  into  him  in  the  form 
of  a  dove,  and  became  the  true  Saviour  of  the 
world. 

In  the  consummation  of  the  present  state 
of  things,  Achamoth  will  be  restored  to  the 
Pleroma ;  and  the  Creator  will  take  her  pres- 
ent seat,  "  the  Middle  Space."  The  spiritual, 
or  rather  their  spirits,  divested  of  their  souls, 
will  enter  the  Pleroma,  and  be  united  as  brides 
to  the  angels  attendant  on  the  ^on  Saviour. 


166  EVIDENCES  OF  THE 

The  rational  (psychical),  who  have  secured 
their  salvation  by  faith  and  good  works,  will 
enter  the  future  realm  of  the  Creator,  where, 
likewise,  the  souls  of  the  spiritual  will  remain. 

From  the  first,  those  souls  which  had  re- 
ceived the  spiritual  seed,  implanted  by  Acha- 
moth,  had  manifested  their  superiority  over 
all  others.  Though  the  Creator  was  ignorant 
of  the  cause  of  their  excellence,  they  were 
objects  of  his  peculiar  favor.  He  constituted 
them  prophets,  priests,  and  kings.  Thus  the 
words  uttered  by  his  prophets  (the  Jewish 
prophets)  did  not  all  proceed  from  the  Crea- 
tor ;  that  spiritual  principle,  which  he  could 
not  give,  spoke  in  them.  Their  declarations, 
therefore,  are  to  be  divided  into  two  classes, 
according  to  the  source  from  which  they  pro- 
ceeded. In  like  manner,  the  words  uttered 
by  the  man  Jesus  sometimes  proceeded  from 
the  iEon  Saviour,  sometimes  from  the  spiritual 
principle  derived  from  Achamoth,  and  sometimes 
from  the  Creator. 

But,  though  the  operations  of  the  spiritual 
principle  in  men  had  been  remarked  by  the 
Creator  before  the  descent  of  the  jEon  Saviour 
from  the  Pleroma,  and  though  he  had  been 
moved  by  these  appearances,  yet  he  treated 
them  with  neglect,  and  imagined  various  causes 


GENUINENESS   OF  THE   GOSPELS.  167 

for  the  effects  produced.  "  When,  however, 
the  Saviour  came,  he  learned  all  things  from 
him,  and,  with  his  whole  attendant  host,  joy- 
fully welcomed  him.  The  Creator  was  typi- 
fied by  the  Centurion  in  the  Gospel,  who  says 
to  the  Saviour,  For  I  also  have  soldiers  and 
servants  under  my  authority,  and  they  do  what 
I  command.  He  will  carry  on  the  govern- 
ment of  the  world,  as  long  as  is  requisite, 
especially  for  the  purpose  of  taking  charge 
of  the  Church  ;  and  likewise  with  a  view  to 
the  reward  prepared  for  him,  with  which  he 
has  been  made  acquainted,  a  removal  into  the 
place  where  his  mother  dwells."  The  Valen- 
tinians  also  affirmed,  "  that  Simeon,  who  took 
Christ  in  his  arms  and  gave  thanks,  and  said, 
Lord,  now  dost  thou  dismiss  thy  servant  in 
peace,  according  to  thy  word,  was  a  type  of 
the  Creator,  who,  upon  the  coming  of  the 
Saviour,  was  made  aware  of  his  own  future 
translation,  and  gave  thanks  to  the  Unknown 
God."* 


*  The  words  above  quoted  are  taken  from  Irenasus,  Lib.  L  c.  7. 
§  4.  pp.  34,  35  ;  and  Lib.  L  c.  8.  §  4.  p.  40.  Tertullian  gives  the 
same  statement,  Advers.  Valentin,  c.  28.  p.  260.  It  corresponds, 
likewise,  with  what  Origen  (Comment,  in  Joan.  T.  13.  0pp.  IV. 
p.  274,  seqq.)  has  quoted  from  the  Valentinian,  Heracleon,  and 
with  what  is  found  in  the  Doctrina  Orientalis  (§§  62  -  65).     I  re- 


168  GENUINENESS  OF  THE  GOSPELS. 

After  what  has  been  already  said,  the  scheme 
explained  in  this  Chapter  affords  no  occasion 
for  any  particular  remark.  But  it  may  be 
observed,  that  the  Valentinians  adduced  in  its 
support  many  passages  from  the  Gospels  and 
Epistles,  in  which,  after  the  fashion  of  their 
day,  they  found  a  hidden  sense.  Of  the  man- 
ner in  which  they  used  such  passages  the  ap- 
pHcation  of  those  just  quoted  affords  a  favor- 
able specimen. 

We  have,  thus,  gone  over  those  opinions  of 
the  theosophic  Gnostics  which  it  is  necessary 
to  consider  apart.  We  will  next  attend  to  the 
opinions  both  of  the  theosophic  Gnostics,  and 
of  the  Marcionites,  concerning  the  person  of 
Christ,  which  may  best  be  viewed  in  connec- 
tion with  each  other. 


fer  to  these  authorities,  because  the  account  of  Mosheim,  in  his 
Commentarii  de  Rebus  Christianorum,  which  is  similar  to  that 
given  by  him  in  his  Ecclesiastical  History,  is  altogether  erroneous. 
After  speaking  in  the  former  work  (p.  384)  of  the  union  of  the 
^on  Jesus  with  Christ  (the  Christ  of  the  Creator)  he  says  :  — 
"  This  divine  man  strenuously  attacked  the  tyranny  of  the  Creator 
of  the  World  and  his  associates,  by  discourses,  miracles,  and  in- 
vectives ;  and  taught  men  the  knowledge  of  the  Supreme  Divin- 
ity, and  the  means  of  procuring  the  salvation  of  that  soul  in  which 
are  the  senses  and  lusts.  Exasperated  by  this,  the  Architect  of 
the  World  caused  him  to  be  apprehended  and  crucified."  —  See 
before,  p.  8,  note. 


CHAPTER  IX. 

ON    THE    OPINIONS    OF    THE    GNOSTICS   CONCEKNING   THE 
PERSON    OF    CHRIST. 

The  Gnostics  generally  believed  that  Christ 
had  not  a  proper  body  of  flesh  and  blood. 
This  belief,  as  I  have  already  said,  was  a 
consequence  of  their  opinion  respecting  the 
evil  nature  of  the  body.*  A  proper  human 
body  was  thought  by  them  inconsistent  with 
the  perfect  purity  of  the  Saviour.  But  the 
Marcionites  and  theosophic  Gnostics,  while 
they  agreed  in  this  fundamental  doctrine,  dif- 
fered in  their  other  opinions  respecting  his 
person. 

The  nativity  of  Christ  was  denied  by  Mar- 
cion.  He  regarded  it  as  wholly  unworthy  of 
the  Divine  Saviour  to  have  passed  through  all 
the  circumstances  attendant  on  birth  and  in- 
fancy.! Christ,  according  to  him,  was  the 
Son,    the    Spirit,    the   Power,    the    Messenger, 


*  See  before,  p.  59. 

t  TertuUian.  Advers.  Marcion.  Lib.  III.  c.  11.  pp.  402,  403. 
De  Came  Christi,  c.  4.  p.  309. 
VOL.  III.  22 


170  EVIDENCES  OF  THE 

the  Christ,  of  the  Unknown  God.*  The  gos- 
pel used  by  Marcion  was  that  of  Luke  mu- 
tilated by  him ;  f  and,  rejecting  all  the  pre- 
vious history,  he  began  with  the  appearance 
of  the  Saviour  in  the  synagogue  at  Caperna- 
um. He  was  then  manifested  in  this  infe- 
rior world,  not  a  man,  but  a  divine  being. J 
His  apparent  body  was  a  mere  phantom.  A 
human  body,  besides  its  corrupt  nature,  must 
have  been  derived  from  the  Creator,  with  whom 
Marcion  (unlike  the  theosophic  Gnostics)  main- 
tained that  his  Christ  had  nothing  in  com- 
mon. He  taught,  that  the  Creator  had  prom- 
ised to  his  pecuhar  people,  the  Jews,  a  Mes- 
siah of  his  own  ;  but  that  the  advent  of  this 
Messiah  had  been  anticipated,  and  his  place 
preoccupied,  by  the  manifestation  of  the  Un- 
known God  in  Christ.^ 

Apelles,  a  disciple  of  Marcion,  though  he 
denied  the  nativity  of  Christ,  held  that  he 
had  a  real,  but  not  a  human,  body.||     So  far 

*  Tertullian.  Advers.  Marcion.  Lib.  III.  c.  3.  p.  397.  Lib.  IV. 
c.  21.  p.  436. 

f  See  Additional  Note,  C. 

J  Tertullian.  Advers.  Marcion.  Lib.  IV.  c.  7.  pp.  416,  417. 
c.  21.  p.  436. 

^  See  before,  p.  9. 

II  Tertullian.  De  Came  Christi,  c.  6.  p.  311.  Advers.  Marcion. 
Lib.  m.  c.  11.  p.  403. 


GENUINENESS  OF  THE  GOSPELS.  171 

as  we  may  conclude  from  our  imperfect  in- 
formation, the  generality  of  the  theosophic 
Gnostics  admitted,  in  like  manner,  the  real- 
ity of  his  body,  and,  with  this,  his  nativity 
also  in  a  certain  sense.  Many  of  them  ap- 
pear to  have  adopted  the  essential  features  of 
a  scheme  often  brought  into  view  by  Irenseus.* 
According  to  this  scheme,  the  iEon  Saviour 
(who,  it  is  to  be  remembered,  was  also  called 
Christ)  descended  from  the  Pleroma  into  the 
Messiah  of  the  Creator,  the  seeming  man 
Jesus,  at  the  baptism  of  the  latter,  and  through 
him  announced  the  Unknown  God.  In  speak- 
ing of  this  complex  being,  the  .^on  seems 
to  have  been  commonly  called  Christ ;  the 
man,  Jesus.  Jesus  having  been  intended  by 
the  Creator  for  his  Messiah,  his  body  had  been 
prepared,  in  a  wonderful  manner,  of  the  psy- 
chical substance,  so  as  to  be  free  from  all 
the  impurities  of  matter.  His  soul  was  de- 
rived from  the  Creator ;  but  there  was  a  spir- 
itual principle  within  him  (a  spirit)  furnished 
by  Achamoth.  As  regards  his  nativity,  he 
passed    through   Mary,    his    mother,   as   water 

*  Cont.  Hasres.  Lib.  L  c.  6.  §  1.  pp.  28,  29.  c.  7.  §  2.  pp.  32, 
33.  c.  9.  §  3.  p.  45.  Lib.  IIL  c.  2.  §  2.  p.  175.  c.  9.  §  3.  p.  184. 
c.  10.  ^  4.  p.  186.  c.  11.  §^  1,  3,  7.  pp.  188-190.  c.  16.  p.  204, 
seqq. 


172  EVIDENCES  OF  THE 

through  a  conduit,  without  receiving  any  thing 
from  her  substance.  When  taken  before  Pi- 
late, the  Mon  Christ  left  him.  The  spirit  fur- 
nished by  Achamoth  likewise  left  him  at  his 
crucifixion ;  and  only  the  psychical  part  of 
the  complex  Saviour,  the  body  and  soul  of 
Jesus,  suffered. 

The  opinion  of  the  theosophic  Gnostics  con- 
cerning the  body  of  Christ,  as  not  a  proper 
human  body,  though  one  capable  of  suffering, 
was  an  hypothesis  in  no  way  affecting  the 
historical  accounts  of  him.  But  it  may  be 
thought  that  the  doctrine  of  the  Marcionites, 
who  conceived  of  his  apparent  body  as  a  phan- 
tom, must  have  led  them  to  reject  much  that 
is  related  in  the  Gospels. 

As  I  have  mentioned,  Marcion  denied  the 
nativity  of  Jesus,  and  rejected,  in  consequence, 
the  first  three  chapters  of  Luke's  Gospel,  the 
only  gospel  which  he  used.  But  he  did  not 
call  in  question  the  actions,  miracles,  and  ap- 
parent sufferings  of  Christ,  as  recorded  by  the 
Evangelist.  He  viewed  those  accounts  as  a 
true  narrative  of  what  appeared  to  the  senses 
of  men.  Regarding  the  supposed  prophecies 
of  the  Old  Testament  concerning  the  Jewish 
Messiah  as  inapplicable  to  the  true  Christ,  he 
relied   on    his    miracles   alone   as   proof   of   his 


GENUINENESS  OF  THE  GOSPELS.  173 

divine  authority.  In  his  view,  no  order  in 
successive  dispensations  of  the  Supreme  God, 
no  preparation  for  the  coming  of  his  Christ, 
was  required.  "  You  affirm,"  says  Tertullian, 
"  that  no  order  of  that  sort  was  necessary,  as 
he  was  immediately  to  prove  himself  by  facts, 
by  the  evidence  of  his  powers,  to  be  the  son 
and  messenger  and  Christ  of  God."*  Marcion, 
likewise,  received  the  accounts  of  the  cruci- 
fixion, death,  and  resurrection  of  Christ,  equally 
with  the  accounts  of  the  transactions  of  his 
ministry.  His  admission  of  the  truth  of  this 
part  of  the  Gospel  history  is  often  referred  to 
by  Tertullian.  Marcion,  indeed,  reasoned  from 
it  to  prove  that  the  Christ  in  whom  he  be- 
lieved was  not  the  Messiah  who  had  been 
promised  to  the  Jews  by  their  Creator-god  ; 
"  denying  that  it  had  been  predicted  that  the 
Christ  of  the  Creator  should  suffer  on  the  cross, 
and  arguing  further,  that  it  was  not  credible 
that  the  Creator  should  subject  his  son  to  that 
kind  of  death  on  which  he  had  himself  pro- 
nounced a  curse  ;  saying.  Cursed  is  every  one 
who  has  hung  on  wood.^^  f 

*  Advers.  Marcion.  Lib.  III.  c.  3.  p.  397. 

t  Ibid.  Lib.  III.  c.  18.  p.  407.  —  The  quotation  from  the  Old 
Testament,  which  I  give  conformably  to  the  words  in  Tertullian 
(Maledictus   omnis  qui  pependerit  in  ligno),   is   to   be  found   in 


174  EVroENCES   OF  THE 

In  different  passages,  TertuUian  insists  that 
there  was  no  reason  why  Marcion  should  deny 
the  nativity  of  Christ,  on  the  ground-  of  its 
being  unworthy  of  the  divine  nature  to  be  born, 
seeing  that  he  admitted  his  crucifixion.*  Re- 
ferring to,  and  misapplying,  the  words  of  St, 
Paul  (to  which,  as  I  have  before  said,t  he 
often  appealed),  "  God  has  chosen  the  foolish 
things  of  this  world  to  confound  the  wise,"  he 
maintains  that  it  was  not  more  foolish,  in  the 
view  of  human  wisdom,  for  a  divine  being  to  be 
born  than  to  be  crucified.  According  to  Mar- 
cion, he  says,t  "  the  nativity  of  Christ  is  dis- 
honorable to  God,  and  unworthy  of  the  Son  of 
God,  and  foolish."  "  But  God,^^  he  replies, 
"  has  chosen  the  foolish  things  of  the  world  to 
confound  the  wise  "  ,*  and  he  then  proceeds  to 
speak  thus  of  the  crucifixion. 

"  Clearly,  there  are  other  things  as  foolish, 
relating  to  the  contumely  and  sufferings  en- 
dured by  the  divine  nature.  Or  shall  I  call  it 
agreeable  to  reason,  that  a  divine  being  should 


Deuteronomy  xxi.  23.  This  passage  is  also  used  by  St.  Paul, 
Galatians  iii.  13. 

*  Besides  the  passage  to  be  immediately  quoted,  see  Advers. 
Marcion.  Lib.  IE.  c  11.  p.  403. 

t  See  Vol.  n.  pp.  256-259. 

X  De  Carnc  Christi,  capp.  4,  5.  pp.  309,  310. 


GENUINENESS  OF  THE  GOSPELS.  175 

be  crucified  ?  *  Expunge  this,  too,  Marcion  ; 
or,  rather,  expunge  this  in  the  first  place.  For 
which  is  more  unworthy  of  a  divine  being, 
which  is  more  shameful,  to  be  born,  or  to  die  ? 
to  bear  about  flesh,  or  to  bear  a  cross  ?  to 
be  circumcised,  or  to  be  pierced  with  nails  ? 
to  be  brought  forth,  or  to  be  buried  ?  to  be 
laid  in  a  manger,  or  in  a  tomb  ?  You  would 
be  wiser,  if  you  disbelieved  all  this  likewise. 
But  you  will  not  be  wise,  unless  you  become 
a  fool  to  the  world  by  believing  the  foolish 
things  of  God.     Have  you  spared  the  account 

*  "  Sunt  plane  et  alia  tarn  stulta  quae  pertinent  ad  contumelias 
et  passiones  dei.  Aut  prudentiam  dicam  [non  dicant]  deum  cru- 
cifixum  1  "  —  To  translate  the  word  deus  by  our  word  God,  in 
these  and  subsequent  passages  of  this  extract,  would  be  imputing 
to  Tertullian  a  sense  which  he  would  have  regarded  with  horror. 
See  his  work  Adversus  Praxeam,  passim.  See  also  Vol.  II. 
p.  252,  seqq.  —  "  Sermo  Dei,"  says  Tertullian,  "deus,  quia  ex 
Deo,  non  tamen  ipse  ex  quo  est."  "  The  Logos  of  God  is  a 
divine  being  [verbally  God]  because  he  is  from  God,  yet  he  is 
not  that  being  from  whom  he  is."  Advers.  Praxeam,  c.  26. 
p.  515. 

It  was  with  very  indeterminate,  inconsistent,  and  changing  con- 
ceptions, that  Tertullian,  and  the  other  early  fathers,  applied  the 
name  god  to  the  Logos  or  Christ,  whom,  as  a  person,  they  re- 
garded as  far  inferior  to  God.  But  they  gave  him  this  name. on 
the  ground  of  his  being  an  attribute  of  God,  his  deriving,  as  a 
person,  his  substance  from  God,  and  his  acting  as  the  minister 
and  representative  of  God.  I  have  had  occasion  elsewhere 
(Statement  of  Reasons,  pp.  280,  281)  to  advert  to  this  subject. 
See  Additional  Note,  D. 


176  EVIDENCES  OF  THE 

of  the  sufferings  of  Christ,  because,  being  a 
phantom,  he  felt  them  not  ?  I  have  already 
said,  that  he  might  equally  submit  to  the 
empty  indignities  of  an  imaginary  birth  and 
infancy."  * 

*  Though  it  is  not  necessary  to  my  purpose,  I  am  tempted  to 
pursue  the  quotation  a  little  farther.  The  passage  is  a  remark- 
able one.  Tertullian  goes  on  thus  :  —  "  But  now  answer  me  this, 
destroyer  of  the  Truth  !  Was  not  the  divine  Saviour  really  cru- 
cified ?  Did  he  not  really  die,  as  he  was  really  crucified  1  Was 
he  not  really  raised  again  to  life,  as  he  really  died  ?  Did  Paul 
falsely  determine  to  know  nothing  among  us  but  Jesus  crucified  1  * 
Did  he  falsely  teach  that  he  was  buried,  and  falsely  insist  on  his 
resurrection  ?  Then  our  faith  is  false  ;  and  all  we  hope  from 
Christ  a  phantom.  Most  wicked  of  men  !  Excuser  of  deicides  ! 
For  Christ  suffered  nothing  from  his  enemies,  if  he  did  not  really 
suffer.  Spare  the  only  hope  of  the  world,  thou  destroyer  of  the 
necessary  dishonor  of  the  Faith.f  Whatever  was  unworthy  of  a 
divine  being  was  for  my  good.  I  am  safe,  if  I  am  not  ashamed 
of  my  Lord.  Of  him,  he  says,  who  has  been  ashamed  of  me  will 
I  be  ashamed.  Fortunate  in  my  want  of  shame, J  happy  in  my 
folly,  I  find  nothing  else  which  can  put  me  to  the  blush.  The 
Son  of  God  was  born  ;  §  —  it  is  shameful,  and,  therefore,  I  am 

*  Rigault  gives  this  sentence  thus  :  —  "  Falso  ergo  statuit  inter  nos 
scire  Paulus  tantum  Jesum  crucifixum."  Instead  of  "  Falso  ergo 
statuit,"  I  adopt  the  reading  "  Falso  statuit,"  and  understand  this  and 
the  following  sentence  as  interrogative. 

t  Rigault's  text  is,  —  "  Q,uid  destruis  necessarium  dedecus  fidei  ?  " 
Instead  of" Quid  destruis,"  I  adopt  the  reading  "qui  destruis,"  with- 
out an  interrogation. 

\  For  "  bene  imprudentem,"  I  adopt  the  reading  "  bene  inipuden- 
tem." 

§  For  "  Crucifixus  est  Dei  filius,"  I  adopt  the  reading  "  Natus  est 
Dei  filius." 


GENUINENESS   OF  THE  GOSPELS.  177 

Before  quitting   this  subject,  we  will  take 
notice  of  a  remarkable   passage  of  Origen,   in 

not  ashamed  of  it.  And  the  Son  of  God  died  ;  —  it  is  altogether 
credible,  because  it  is  absurd.  And  he  was  buried  and  rose 
again  ;  —  it  is  certain,  because  it  is  impossible." 

The  meaning  of  Tertullian  in  the  last  sentences  may  be  thus 
explained.  God,  he  argues,  has,  through  the  Apostle,  avowed 
that  he  has  chosen  what  is  foolish  in  the  view  of  men  to  confound 
the  wise.  Do  you,  then,  refuse  to  admit  the  nativity  of  Christ, 
because  it  may  seem  to  you  dishonorable  for  the  Son  of  God,  the 
Divine  Saviour,  to  be  born  ?  Or  is  his  real  crucifixion  to  be  dis- 
believed, because  it  may  appear  absurd  to  men  to  assert  that  such 
a  being  died  1  Or  is  the  proper  fact  of  his  resurrection  to  be  re- 
jected, because  it  may  appear  impossible  to  men  that  a  dead  body 
should  return  to  life?  On  the  contrary,  these  things,  including 
his  nativity,  are  in  truth  the  foolish  things  which  God  has  spoken 
of  as  characteristic  of  his  dispensation.  I  believe  them  the  more 
firmly,  because,  so  far  as  they  seem  to  men  dishonorable,  foolish, 
and  impossible,  so  far  they  coincide  with  the  avowed  purpose  of 
God.  They  bear  the  very  character  which  he  has  ascribed  to  the 
means  used  by  him  to  confound  the  wise.  What  are  those  fool- 
ish things,  Tertullian  asks  immediately  before,  to  which  the  words 
of  the  Apostle  may  apply?  "  The  conversion  of  men  to  the  wor- 
ship of  the  true  God  1  the  rejection  of  error  ?  the  forming  of  men  to 
righteousness,  chastity,  patience,  mercy,  innocence?  —  These  are 
not  foolish  things.  Search  out  what  the  Apostle  referred  to,  and 
if  you  have  reason  to  suppose  that  you  have  found  it,  then  it  will 
no  longer  seem  foolish  to  you  to  believe  *  that  a  divine  being  was 
born,  and  born  of  a  virgin,  and  with  a  body  of  flesh." 

The  words,  "  Certum  est,  quia  impossibile,"  "  It  is  certain,  be- 
cause it  is  impossible,"  have  been  often  quoted,  with  some  change 
("  Credo,  quia  impossibile,"  "  I  believe,  because  it  is  impossi- 

*  For  "  non  erit   tarn  stultum  quam  credere,"  I  adopt  the  reading, 
"  non  crit  jam  stuhum  credere." 
VOL.  III.  23 


178  EVIDENCES  OF  THE 

which  he  in  some  degree  countenances  an 
opinion  quite  as  extraordinary,  to  say  the  least, 
asv  that  of  the  Marcionites.  It  is  found  in 
the  Latin  translation  of  his  Commentaries  on 
Matthew.*  But  there  can  be  no  reasonable 
doubt  that  it  was  originally  written  by  him, 
not  interpolated  by  his  translator.  He  is  com- 
menting on  the  fact,  that  Judas,  when  be- 
traying his  master,  pointed  him  out  by  a  kiss 
to  those  who  accompanied  him  ;  the  fact  be- 
ing considered  by  Origen  as  implying  that 
they  might  not  otherwise  have  known  his  per- 
son, f  His  words,  considerably  abridged,  are 
as  follows  :  — 

"  A   tradition   has    come    down    to    us,    that 


ble"),  ironically,  with  a  cast  of  ridicule  on  Tertullian.  In  the 
last  sentences  adduced  from  him,  his  vehement  eloquence  has 
broken  down  the  common  barriers  of  language ;  but  it  seems  to  be 
treating  him  hardly,  to  give  a  verbal  meaning  to  his  overbold 
and  very  concise  expressions,  in  order  to  convert  them  into 
absurdities. 

The  whole  passage  is  one  of  the  many,  before  referred  to 
(See  pp.  146,  147),  in  which  he,  Justin  Martyr,  and  Irenasus 
express  clearly  and  strongly  their  belief  of  the  sufferings  of  the 
Logos. 

*  Series  Comment,  in  Matth.  ^  100.  0pp.  III.  906. 

I  Many  of  them  probably  did  not  know  his  person,  as  Jesus 
during  his  ministry  was  but  very  little,  comparatively,  at  Jerusa- 
lem ;  others  might  not  readily  have  distinguished  him  by  the  light 
of  the  moon,  mingled  with  that  of  torches  and  lanterns. 


GENUINENESS  OF  THE  GOSPELS.  179 

Jesus  had  not  only  two  forms,  that  in  which 
he  was  seen  by  all,  and  that  in  which  he  was 
seen  by  his  disciples  at  his  transfiguration ; 
but  that  he  appeared  to  every  one  in  the  form 
of  which  he  was  worthy ;  and  that  (at  times) 
when  present,  he  appeared  to  all  like  another 
person.*  Thus  he  resembled  the  manna,  which 
had  a  different  taste  for  different  individuals, 
accommodated  to  every  man's  liking.f  And 
this  tradition  does  not  seem  to  me  incredible. 
But  if  it  were  so,  we  may  explain  w^hy  the 
multitude  who  accompanied  Judas,  though 
they  had  often  seen  Jesus,  nevertheless  need- 
ed some  one  familiar  with  him  to  point  him 
out  to  them,  on  account  of  the  changes  of 
his  form." 

This  extraordinary  tradition  does  not  ap- 
pear to  have  dwelt  on  the  mind  of  Origen ; 
for  he  never  elsewhere  mentions  it  in  his  re- 
maining works ;  but  it  presents  a  conception 
that  may  seem  even  stranger  than  that  of  the 
Marcionites.J     The  passage,  however,  well  de- 


*  "  Sed  etiam  unicuique  apparebat  secundum  quod  fuerat  dig- 
nus.     Et  cum  fuisset  ipse,  quasi  non  ipse  omnibus  videbatur." 

■]•  This  notion  respecting  the  manna  was  derived  by  Origen 
from  what  is  said  in  the  Wisdom  of  Solomon,  ch.  xvi.  20,  21. 

X  The  story  referred  to  by  Origen  is  likewise  mentioned  by 
Photius  (in  the  ninth  century),  as  having  been  found  by  him  in  a 


180  EVIDENCES  OF  THE 

serves  attention  ;  especially  in  connection  with 
their  doctrine,  —  which  existed  before  the  mid- 
dle of  the  second  century.  Taken  together, 
they  serve  to  show  with  what  fables  and  strange 
imaginations  the  history  of  Jesus  would  have 
been  mingled,  had  it  not,  at  an  early  period, 
been  fixed  in  its  true  form  by  the  authentic 
records  of  his  contemporary  disciples.  They 
are  among  those  collateral  evidences  (hereafter 
to  be  discussed)  which,  taken  alone,  afford 
irresistible  proof  that  the  Gospels  were  not 
compilations  of  a  later  period  than  that  assigned 
for  their  origin.  If  the  histories  of  Christ  had 
been  founded  upon  traditions  existing  among 
the  Gentile  Christians  after  their  separation 
from  the  Jewish  Christians,  that  is,  after  the 
apostolic  age ;  then,  instead  of  bearing  the 
character  which  they  now  have,  they  would 
have  been  not  only  irreconcilable  with  each 
other,  but  disfigured  by  such  traditions  as  that 
preserved  by  Origen,  and  such  conceptions  as 
that  of  Marcion.  The  growth  of  fables  re- 
specting  our    Saviour,    which   was    blasted    by 

book  called  "  Circuits  (IlfptoSoi)  of  the  Apostles,"  professedly 
written  by  an  author  of  the  name  of  Leucius  Charinus.  In  that 
book  it  was  connected  with  the  opinion  of  the  Marcionites,  and 
subsequently  of  the  Manichaeans,  that  the  apparent  body  of  Christ 
was  only  a  phantom.     Photii  Bibliotlieca,  col.  202.  Ed.  Schotti. 


GENUINENESS  OF  THE  GOSPELS.  181 

the  existence  of  the  Gospels,  would  have  been 
rank  without  it ;  and  each  compiler  of  a  his- 
tory would  have  selected  from  relations  true 
or  false  what  was  accommodated  to  his  own 
belief  or  imaginations  respecting  Christianity 
and  its  founder.  Marcion,  for  example,  instead 
of  mutilating,  as  he  did,  the  Gospel  of  Luke, 
and  using  that  alone,  would  have  constructed 
a  gospel  of  his  own,  much  more  favorable  to 
his  opinions  than  any  thing  he  could  derive 
from  Luke. 

We  will  next  consider  what  were  the  views 
of  the  Gnostics  concerning  the  general  design 
of  Christianity,  or,  in  other  words,  the  pur- 
pose of  the  interposition  of  the  True  God  by 
Christ. 


CHAPTER  X. 

ON    THE    OPINIONS    OF    THE    GNOSTICS    RESPECTING    THE    DE- 
SIGN   OF    CHRISTIANITY. 

The  subject  of  this  Chapter,  however  impor- 
tant to  be  attended  to,  in  order  that  we  may 
form  a  correct  estimate  of  the  Gnostics,  requires 
little  explanation  or  discussion.  It  does  not 
appear  that  the  Christian  Gnostics,  as  a  body, 
differed  essentially  from  the  catholic  Christians 
in  their  general  views  of  the  design  of  Chris- 
tianity. We,  accordingly,  have  no  remains  of 
any  controversy  between  the  two  parties  con- 
cerning this  subject. 

It  may,  or  may  not,  be  regarded  as  a  qualifi- 
cation of  these  remarks,  that  the  theosophic 
Gnostics  were  distinguished  from  the  catholic 
Christians  by  maintaining  the  doctrine  of  the 
natural  division  of  men  into  three  classes,  one 
secure  of  future  blessedness  in  the  Pleroma, 
another  to  be  rewarded  or  punished  by  the 
Creator  according  to  their  deserts,  and  the  third 
formed  to  perish.*     But  they  ascribed  (I  speak 

*  See  before,  p.  164. 


GENUINENESS  OF  THE  GOSPELS.  183 

of  the  more  respectable  and  sober  of  their 
number)  a  moral  efficacy,  and,  as  far  as  appears, 
a  moral  efficacy  alone,  to  the  Christian  dispensa- 
tion. It  was,  in  their  view,  a  manifestation  of 
the  Unknown  God,  of  the  True  God,  to  reveal 
himself  and  his  purposes  to  men,  to  deliver 
them  from  the  power  of  moral  evil,  and  to  form 
"  the  spiritual  "  and  "  the  rational  "  (psychical) 
for  the  happiness  of  which  they  were  respective- 
ly capable. 

The  doctrine,  that  "  the  spiritual "  were,  by 
their  nature,  secure  of  future  blessedness,  was 
undoubtedly  liable  to  be  greatly  abused ;  and, 
considering  the  condition  of  the  times,  we  have 
no  reason  to  doubt  that  in  many  individuals  it 
led  to  such  irregularities  as  were  charged  on  the 
theosophic  Gnostics.  Doctrines  different  from 
it  in  form,  but  the  same  in  effect,  have  prevailed 
in  modern  times  ;  and  in  periods  of  great  ex- 
citement, as  in  Germany  at  the  time  of  the  Ref- 
ormation, and  among  the  fanatics  in  England 
in  the  seventeenth  century,  they  have  been  fol- 
lowed by  like  disastrous  consequences.  But, 
during  ordinary  seasons,  other  principles  and 
other  influences,  acting  upon  the  minds  of  those 
by  whom  they  are  held,  oppose  and  control  their 
dangerous  tendency. 

It   does    not    appear    that    the    Marcionites 


184  EVIDENCES  OF  THE 

adopted  the  notion  of  the  theosophic  Gnostics 
concerning  the  natural  division  of  men  into 
three  classes.  This  world  they  regarded  as 
evil ;  its  ruler  as  of  a  character  diverse  from, 
and,  in  some  respects,  contrary  to,  that  of  the 
Supreme  God ;  and  all  connection  with  it 
through  the  pleasures  of  the  senses  as  polluting. 
In  their  view,  the  Supreme  God  had  interposed 
to  enable  men  to  deliver  themselves  from  the 
realm  of  the  Creator,  and  to  attain  to  a  far 
better  state.  This  deliverance  was  to  be  effect- 
ed by  cultivating  their  spiritual  nature,  by  the 
practice  of  Christian  virtue,  and,  especially,  by 
what,  in  their  opinion,  formed  an  essential  part 
of  it,  ascetic  morality,  and  an  abstinence  from 
worldly  pleasures.  Thus  were  men  to  separate 
themselves  from  the  world  and  its  ruler.  The 
Good  God  did  not  punish ;  but  with  regard  to 
the  final  lot  of  those  not  admitted  to  his  spirit- 
ual world,  our  information  is  too  imperfect  to 
enable  us  to  complete  the  scheme  of  Marcion. 

The  belief  of  the  theosophic  Gnostics,  that 
the  ^on  Christ  left  the  man  Jesus  before  his 
crucifixion,  and  that  of  the  Marcipnites,  that 
the  seeming  body  of  Christ  was  a  phantom, 
incapable  of  suffering,  make  it  evident  that 
they  could  have  had  no  notion  of  the  doctrine 


GENUINENESS  OF  THE  GOSPELS.  185 

of  Atonement  as  it  appears  in  modern  creeds,  a 
doctrine  which  theologians  have  represented  as 
the  distinguishing  feature  of  Christianity.  But 
on  this  subject  there  was  no  controversy  be- 
tween them  and  the  early  catholic  Christians, 
to  whom  the  doctrine  was  equally  unknown. 

The  theosophic  Gnostics  have  been  compared 
with  those  religionists  in  our  own  times,  who 
maintain  that  the  objects  of  faith  may  be  felt, 
or  may  be  discerned,  by  each  individual  mind, 
without  the  aid  of  Revelation,  the  belief  in 
which  they  consequently  reject.  But  the  spirit- 
ual intuition,  claimed  by  the  Gnostics  for  them- 
selves alone,  had  no  agreement  with  this  doc- 
trine. It  corresponds  rather  to  the  exclusive 
pretension  to  a  supernatural  faith,  which  many 
other  Christian  sects  have  set  up  since  their 
time.  From  those  modern  religionists  the 
Gnostics  were  likewise  very  widely  separated 
by  the  fundamental  distinction,  that  they  recog- 
nized in  Christianity  a  character  altogether  su- 
pernatural. They  regarded  it  as  a  manifesta- 
tion of  the  Supreme  God,  in  which  his  glory 
had,  for  the  first  time,  irradiated  this  lower 
world;  —  as  a  miraculous  interposition  of  the 
most  extraordinary  character.  They  were,  there- 
fore, as  strongly  distinguished  as  any  Christians 

VOL.  III.  24 


186  GENUINENESS  OF  THE  GOSPELS. 

from  all  those  speculatists  who  reject  the  belief 
that  Christianity  is  a  revelation  from  God. 

But  how  was  it  possible  that  the  Gnostics 
could  reconcile  their  peculiar  doctrines  with  the 
teachings  of  Christ?  This  is  a  question  to 
which  we  will  attend  in  the  next  Chapter. 


CHAPTER  XL 

OF    THE    MANNER    IN    WHICH    THE    GNOSTICS    RECONCILED 
THEIR    DOCTRINES    WITH   CHRISTIANITY. 

In  comparing  the  peculiar  doctrines  of  the 
Gnostics  with  the  teaching  of  Christ,  as  record- 
ed in  the  Gospels,  or  with  the  Christian  Scrip- 
tures generally,  the  question  naturally  arises, 
How  could  they  imagine  those  doctrines  to  have 
been  taught  by  the  Master  whom  they  professed 
to  follow,  or  identify  them  in  any  way  with 
Christianity  ?  We  may,  at  first  view,  be  inclined 
strongly  to  suspect  that  they  held  the  common 
histories  of  Christ,  and  the  other  books  of  the 
New  Testament,  in  no  esteem ;  and  to  adopt 
the  inference  of  Gibbon,  that  "  it  was  impossi- 
ble that  the  Gnostics  could  receive  our  present 
Gospels."* 

But,  on  further  attention  to  the  subject,  we 
may  perceive  that  there  is  nothing  peculiar  in 
the  case  of  the  Gnostics.  Their  systems  have 
long  been  obsolete ;   they  are  foreign  from  our 

*  See  Vol.  II.  p.  12. 


188  EVIDENCES  OF  THE 

thoughts  and  imaginations ;  and  in  comparing 
them  with  the  systems  of  other  sects,  we  are 
apt  to  measure  their  relative  distance  from 
Christianity  by  their  relative  distance  from  the 
forms  of  Christian  belief  with  which  we  are 
familiar.  Of  opinions  equally  false,  those  with 
which  we  have  long  been  acquainted  seem  to  us 
much  less  extraordinary  than  such  as  are  newly 
presented  to  our  minds.  In  inquiring,  therefore, 
how  the  Gnostics  could  mistake  their  doctrines 
for  the  doctrines  of  Christianity,  the  first  consid- 
eration to  be  attended  to  is  the  fact,  that  their 
mistake  was  not  greater  than  that  which  has 
been  committed  by  a  large  majority  of  the  pro- 
fessed disciples  of  Christ.  The  faith  of  the 
whole  Christian  world  for  ten  centuries  before 
the  Reformation  had  no  advantage  over  that 
of  the  Gnostics,  in  being  more  accordant  with 
reason  and  Christianity.  The  gross  literal 
errors  and  absurdities,  maintained  by  the  Catho- 
lics of  this  period,  are  in  as  strong  contrast  with 
the  truths  of  our  religion,  as  the  mystic  extrava- 
gances of  the  early  heretics.  The  system  by 
which  the  Catholic  faith  was  supplanted  among 
Protestants,  with  its  doctrines  concerning  the 
threefold  personality  of  God,  and  concerning 
God's  government  of  his  creatures ;  with  its 
representations  of  the  totally  depraved   nature. 


GENUINENESS  OF  THE  GOSPELS.  189 

capable  only  of  moral  evil,  with  which  he  brings 
men  into  being ;  with  its  scheme  of  redemption 
required  by  man's  utter  misery  and  helplessness; 
its  infinite  satisfaction  to  the  justice  of  God  the 
Father,  made  by  the  sufferings  of  God  the  Son ; 
and  its  "  horrible  decrees,"  *  may,  perhaps,  ap- 
pear to  a  rational  believer  of  the  present  day  to 
stand  in  as  open  and  direct  opposition  to  Chris- 
tianity as  the  systems  of  the  leading  Gnostics. 
Or,  to  come  down  to  a  later  period,  the  hypoth- 
eses and  expositions  by  which  the  Gnostics  rec- 
onciled their  conceptions  with  the  declarations 
of  Christ  and  his  Apostles  could  not,  as  many 
will  think,  be  more  irrational  and  extravagant 
than  the  hypotheses  and  expositions  of  that 
modern  school  of  German  theologians  who,  ad- 
mitting the  authenticity  of  the  Gospels,  find 
nothing  supernatural  in  the  history,  but  explain, 
as  conformable  to  the  common  laws  of  nature, 
events  which,  according  to  their  theory,  have, 
from  the  time  of  their  occurrence  to  the  present 

*  I  borrow  the  expression  from  a  well-known  passage  of 
Calvin.  "Unde  factum  est,  ut  tot  gentes  una  cum  liberis  eorum 
infantibus  aeternae  morti  involveret  lapsus  Adje  absque  remedio, 

nisi  quia  Deo  ita  visum  est? Decretum  quidem  horribile 

fateor."  —  "Whence  is  it,  that  the  fall  of  Adam  involved  so 
many  nations  with  their  infant  children  in  eternal  death,  without 

remedy,  except  that  it  so  seemed  good  to  God? It  is  a 

horrible  decree,  I  confess."     Institut.  Lib.  III.  c.  23.  §  7. 


190  EVIDENCES  OF  THE 

day,  been  mistaken  for  miracles.  I  refer  to  the 
opinions  of  large  bodies  of  Christians,  or  of 
men  claiming  to  be  called  Christians  ;  and  to 
speculations  which  have  been  defended  by  such 
as  were,  or  have  been  reputed  to  be,  learned  and 
able.  It  is  not  necessary  to  pursue  the  illustra- 
tion by  adverting  to  the  doctrines  of  smaller 
sects.  I  will  only  observe  further,  as  the  case 
seems  to  me  particularly  analogous,  that  the 
disciples  of  Swedenborg  are  believers  in  our  re- 
ligion, that  they  have  their  full  share  of  the 
Christian  virtues,  and  that  they  have  reckoned 
among  their  number  men  of  more  than  common 
powers  of  mind ;  while  he  who  rejects  the  sys- 
tems both  of  Ptolemy  and  of  Swedenborg  will 
probably  think  that  there  is  no  reason  for  pre- 
ferring one  to  the  other,  on  account  of  its  being 
the  more  rational  faith,  or  having  a  better  foun- 
dation in  the  Gospels. 

Whatever  opinions  a  thinking  man  may  en- 
tertain of  Christianity,  or  of  religion  unconnect- 
ed with  Christianity,  when  he  compares  them 
with  those  which  have  existed,  or  are  exist- 
ing, among  mankind,  he  will  find  himself  in  a 
small  minority.  Whoever  may  really  have  at- 
tained to  the 

"  bene  munita, 

"  Edita  doctrina  sapientum,  tenipla  screna," 


GENUINENESS  OF  THE  GOSPELS.  191 

to  the  serene  temples,  well  fortified,  built  up  by 
the  learning  of  the  wise, 

"  Despicere  unde  queas  alios,  passimque  videre 
Errareatque  viam  palenteis  quaerere  vitae," 

will  assuredly  not  find  them  thronged ;  and, 
from  their  height,  he  will  see  not  a  few  others 
wandering  in  errors  as  extravagant  as  those  of 
the  Gnostics. 

Such  have,  for  many  centuries,  been  the 
doctrines  of  the  larger  portion  of  the  professed 
followers  of  Christ,  that  Faith  has  been  formally 
disconnected  from  Reason  ;  and  reason,  or,  as 
the  term  is  usually  qualified,  human  reason,  has 
been  represented  as  its  dangerous  enemy. 
From  the  time  of  the  Gnostics  to  our  own,  there 
has  always  been  a  very  numerous  class,  com- 
posed of  individuals  who  have  held  different 
and  opposite  tenets,  but  who  have  all  in  com- 
mon appealed,  in  some  form  or  other,  to  an  in- 
ward sense,  a  spiritual  discernment,  infallible 
in  its  perceptions,  surpassing  the  powers  of 
the  understanding,  and  superseding  their  use. 
"  The  natural  man,"  says  St.  Paul,  meaning  the 
unconverted,  him  who  rejected  revelation,  "re- 
ceives not  the  truths  of  the  spirit  of  God ;  for 
they  are  foolishness  to  him,  and  he  cannot 
know   them ;    because   they  are    spiritually  dis- 


192  EVIDENCES  OF  THE 

cerned " ;  *  that  is  to  say,  spiritual  things,  the 
truths  taught  by  Christianity,  are  to  be  discerned 
only  through  the  light  which  Christianity  affords. 
But  the  words  of  the  Apostle  were  early  per- 
verted by  the  theosophic  Gnostics ;  f  and  there 
are  none  that  have  been  more  commonly  or  more 
mischievously  abused.  One  main  occasion  of 
the  existence,  not  only  of  the  Gnostics,  but  of 
other  sects  of  religionists,  has  been  the  vanity  of 
belonging  to  a  spiritual  aristocracy,  from  which 
good  sense,  learning,  and  rational  piety  only 
form  a  ground  of  exclusion.  Those  Gnostics, 
with  their  pretence  to  spiritual  discernment,  had 
no  more  difficulty  than  later  sects  in  finding 
what  they  looked  for  in  the  teachings  of  Christ. 

The  ease  with  which  different  parties  among 
Christians  have  discovered  apparent  support  for 
doctrines  the  most  irrational  has  been  essentially 
connected  with  a  fundamental  error  respecting 
the  nature  of  those  writings  which  compose 
the  Old  and  New  Testaments.  Conformably  to 
what  I  have  before  had  occasion  to  remark,  f  all 
these  writings,  so  different  in  character  and  val- 
ue, have  been  represented  as   constituting  the 

*  1  Corinthians  ii.  14. 

f  Irenffius,  Lib.  I.  c.  8.  §  3.  p.  39. 

%  See  Vol.  II.  p.  cxcvi. 


GENUINENESS   OF  THE  GOSPELS.  193 

Revelation  from  God.  They  have  been  ascribed 
to  God  as  their  proper  author ;  the  human  writ- 
ers being  considered  only  as  agents  under  his 
immediate  direction.  When,  therefore,  all  these 
different  writers,  with  all  their  imperfect  and 
erroneous  conceptions,  were  thus  transformed  in- 
to infallible  divine  instructers,  there  is  no  won- 
der that  their  words,  even  if  correctly  under- 
stood, should  afford  support  for  many  errors. 
But,  besides  the  direct  consequence  of  this  fun- 
damental misapprehension,  there  has  been  an 
indirect  consequence  not  less  important.  The 
words  contained  in  the  books  of  the  Old  and 
New  Testaments  being  regarded  as  the  words 
not  of  men,  but  of  God,  the  rational  principles 
of  interpretation,  which  would  apply  to  them  as 
the  words  of  men,  have  been  set  aside.  These 
principles  would  lead  us  to  study  the  respective 
characters  of  the  authors  of  those  books,  and 
the  various  influences  which  were  acting  upon 
them,  and  to  make  ourselves  acquainted  with  the 
particular  occasion  and  purpose  of  their  different 
writings,  and  with  the  characters,  circumstances, 
opinions,  errors,  and  modes  of  expression  of 
those  for  whom  their  writings  were  immediate- 
ly intended  ;  and  when  we  had  thus  enabled 
ourselves,  as  far  as  possible,  to  sympathize  with 
them,  we  should  determine  their  meaning  with 

VOL.  III.  25 


194  EVIDENCES  OF  THE 

a  constant  regard  to  the  considerations  which 
we  had  thus  grouped  together.  But  such 
knowledge  is  foreign  from  the  purpose,  if  the 
books  to  be  explained  are  not  properly  the 
works  of  human  authors.  It  has,  accordingly, 
been  disregarded.  The  essential  elements  and 
rules  of  a  correct  interpretation  have  been  neg- 
lected ;  and  the  work  of  explaining  the  Scrip- 
tures has  been  denied  to  reason  and  judgment, 
and  delivered  over  to  men's  preconceptions,  ca- 
prices, imaginations,  and  spiritual  discernment. 
The  consequence  has  been,  that  in  the  perform- 
ance of  this  work  we  may  find  all  varieties  of 
error,  from  the  wildest  allegories  and  Cabalistic 
follies,  down  to  the  imposition  of  verbal  mean- 
ings which  are  verbal  or  moral  absurdities.  The 
false  modes  of  interpretation  common  in  their 
day  afforded  the  theosophic  Gnostics,  as  false 
modes  of  interpretation  have  afforded  later  sects, 
a  ready  means  of  apparently  reconciling  their 
opinions  with  the  Scriptures. 

Every  one  acquainted  with  theological  con- 
troversy must  be  familiar  with  the  fact,  that,  in 
defending  doctrines  contrary  to  the  teaching 
of  Christ,  a  few  texts  are  seized  upon,  the 
words  of  which,  when  standing  alone,  admit 
an  interpretation    favorable  to  those  doctrines ; 


GENUINENESS  OF  THE  GOSPELS.  195 

and  that  their  defenders,  fixing  their  attention 
on  these  texts,  are  able  to  close  their  eyes  to 
the  whole  opposing  tenor  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment. But  the  Gnostics  could  have  been  in  no 
want  of  such  texts  as  might  readily  be  accom- 
modated to  the  support  of  their  fundamental 
doctrine,  that  the  God  of  the  Jews  was  not  the 
God  of  Christians.  Marcion  wrote  a  work  on 
this  subject  which  he  entitled  "Antitheses," 
the  main  object  of  which  was  to  point  out  the 
contrariety  between  the  representations  given 
by  Christ  of  his  Father  and  those  given  of  God 
in  the  Old  Testament.*  The  opposition  be- 
tween Christianity  and  some  of  the  views  of 
religion  and  morals  presented  in  the  Penta- 
teuch (which  I  have  had  occasion  to  remark) 
furnished  the  Gnostics  with  a  storehouse  of 
arguments  from  Scripture.  As  regards  another 
principal  point,  the  claim  set  up  by  the  theo- 
sophic  Gnostics  to  be  by  nature  the  chosen,  or 
the  elect,  of  God,  as  being  the  spiritual,  they 
could  have  found  no  more  difficulty  in  support- 
ing their  pretensions  from  the  New  Testament, 
than  any  of  those  who,  since  their  day,  have 
claimed  to  be  elected  as  the  spiritual  through 


*  TertuUian.  Advers.  Marcion.  Lib.  I.  c.  19.  p.  374.     Lib.  IV. 
.c.  1.  p.  413.  c.  6.  p.  416. 


196  EVIDENCES  OF  THE 

a  decree  of  God,  irrespective  of  any  merits  of 
their  own.  Similar  modes  of  misinterpretation 
would  apply  as  well  in  the  one  case  as  the 
other,  and  furnish  a  similar  harvest  of  apparent 
proofs. 

After  these  general  remarks,  we  will  proceed 
to  consider  more  particularly  the  means  by 
which  the  Gnostics  reconciled  their  doctrines 
with  their  Christian  faith.  The  inquiry  is  one 
of  particular  interest,  on  account  of  the  proof 
which  it  affords  that  the  Gnostics  had  no  other 
Gospel-history  than  that  which  was  common 
to  them  with  the  catholic  Christians  and  with 
ourselves ;  and  that,  together  with  the  catholic 
Christians,  they  used  some  one,  or  all,  of  our 
present  Gospels,  as  the  only  document  or  docu- 
ments of  any  value  respecting  the  ministry  of 
Christ. 

In  the  first  place,  then,  the  theosophic  Gnos- 
tics, in  common  with  the  catholic  Christians, 
applied  the  allegorical  mode  of  interpretation  to 
the  New  Testament.  Neglecting  the  proper 
meaning  of  words,  they  educed  from  them  mys- 
tical senses.  Of  these,  I  have  already,  in  the 
course  of  this  work,  produced  examples ;  and 
many  more  are  given  by  their  early  opponents,  ^ 


GENUINENESS  OF  THE  GOSPELS.  197 

particularly  by  Irenaeus.  This  afforded  a  ready 
means  of  accommodating  the  language  of  the 
New  Testament  to  their  conceptions.  But  their 
whole  system  of  interpretation  was,  besides,  ar- 
bitrary, and  unsupported  by  any  correct  princi- 
ples. The  vocabulary  of  the  theosophic  Gnos- 
tics, like  that  of  other  erring  sects,  consisted,  in 
great  part,  of  words  from  the  New  Testament, 
on  which  they  had  imposed  new  senses.  The 
names  of  the  iEons  most  frequently  mentioned 
were  borrowed  from  the  New  Testament ;  and 
as  the  same  name  was  applied  by  them  to 
different  individuals,  —  as  the  name  of  God,  for 
example,  was  given  both  to  the  Gnostic  Creator 
and  to  the  Supreme  Being,  and  that  of  Jesus 
both  to  the  iEon  so  named  and  to  the  man  Je- 
sus, —  it  thus  became  easy  for  them,  on  the  one 
hand,  to  find  supposed  references  to  their  theory, 
and,  on  the  other,  to  explain  away  much  that 
was  inconsistent  with  it. 

Like  other  false  expositors  of  Scripture,  the 
Gnostics  detached  particular  passages  from  their 
connection,  and  infused  a  foreign  meaning  into 
the  words.  Irenaeus,  after  saying  that  they  ap- 
pealed to  unwritten  tradition  as  a  source  of 
their  knowledge,  goes  on  to  remark,  that, 
"  twisting,  according  to  the  proverb,  a  rope  of 
sand,  they  endeavour  to  accommodate  in  a  plau- 


198  EVIDENCES  OF  THE 

sible  manner  to  their  doctrines  the  parables  of 
the  Lord,  the  declarations  of  the  Prophets,  or 
the  words  of  the  Apostles,  so  that  their  fiction 
may  not  seem  to  be  without  proof.  But  they 
neglect  the  order  and  connection  of  the  Scrip- 
tures, and  disjoin,  as  far  as  they  are  able,  the 
members  of  the  truth.  They  transpose  and  re- 
fashion, and,  making  one  thing  out  of  another, 
they  deceive  many  by  a  fabricated  show  of  the 
words  of  the  Lord  which  they  put  together."  * 
The  Gnostics,  according  to  him,  in  thus  putting 
together  proofs  from  Scripture,  resembled  one 
who,  taking  a  mosaic  representing  a  king,  should 
separate  the  stones,  and  then  form  them  into  the 
likeness  of  a  dog  or  a  fox.f  He  afterwards  com- 
pares them  to  those  who  made  centos  from  lines 
of  Homer,  by  which  some  story  was  told  alto- 
gether foreign  from  any  thing  in  his  works,  f 
They  allowed,  he  says,  that  the  unknown  God, 
and  the  transactions  within  the  Pleroma,  "  were 
not  plainly  declared  by  the  Saviour,  because  all 
had  not  capacity  to  receive  such  knowledge  ; 
but,  to  those  who  were  able  to  understand  them, 

*  Cont.  Haeres.  Lib.  I.  c.  8.  §  1.  p.  36. — For  aocjiia  in  the 
last  sentence,  I  adopt  the  reading  (jiavraaia  or  (pavrda-fiari.  See 
Massuet's  note. 

t  Ibid. 

X  Lib.  I.  c.  9.  ^  4.  pp.  45,  46. 


GENUINENESS  OF  THE  GOSPELS.  199 

they  were  signified   by  him   mystically  and  in 

parables."  * 

In  addition  to  these  modes  of  interpretation, 
the  theosophic  Gnostics  likewise  maintained  a 
principle  similar  to  a  fundamental  doctrine  of 
the  Roman  Catholics,  namely,  that  religious 
truth  could  not  be  learned  from  the  Scriptures 
alone,  without  the  aid  of  the  oral  instructions 
of  Christ  and  his  Apostles,  as  preserved  by 
tradition.  "  When,"  says  Ireneeus,  "  they  are 
confuted  by  proofs  from  the  Scriptures,  they 
turn  and  accuse  the  Scriptures  themselves, 
as  if  they  were  not  correct,  nor  of  authority  ; 
they  say  that  they  contain  contradictions,  and 
that  the  truth  cannot  be  discovered  from  them 
by  those  who  are  ignorant  of  tradition.  For 
that  it  was  not  delivered  in  writing,  but  orally ; 
whence  Paul  said,  'We  speak  wisdom  among 
the  perfect,  but  not  the  wisdom  of  this  world.'  "f 
"  The  heretics,"  says  Tertullian,  "  pretend  that 
the  Apostles  did  not  reveal  all  things  to  all, 
but  taught  some  doctrines  openly  to  every  one, 
some    secretly   and    to   a   few  only."  |      What 

*  Lib.  L  c.  3.  §  1.  p.  14.     Lib.  IL  c.  10.  ^  1.  p.  126.     Lib.  IL 
c.  27.  ^  2.  p.  155. 

t  Lib.  IIL  c.  2.  §  1.  p.  174. 

X  De  Prasscriptione  Haereticorum,  cap.  25.  p.  210. 


200  EVIDENCES  OF  THE 

was  peculiar  in  their  own  doctrines  they  re- 
garded as  that  esoteric  teaching  which  had 
come  down  to  them  by  oral  tradition. 

Conformably  to  this,  the  Gnostics,  in  par- 
ticular cases,  pointed  out  certain  individuals, 
supposed  disciples  of  the  Apostles,  from  whom 
their  leaders  had  received  their  systems.  Thus 
Valentinus  was  said  to  have  been  taught  by 
Theodas,  an  acquaintance  of  Paul,  and  Ba- 
silides  by  Glaucias,  a  companion  of  Peter.* 
It  would  seem,  likewise,  from  a  single  pas- 
sage in  Clement  of  Alexandria,  that  the  Gnos- 
tics generally  boasted  that  their  opinions  were 
favored  by  Matthias,t  who  was  chosen  an  Apos- 
tle in  the  place  of  Judas. t  Though  the  re- 
mark is  not  made  by  Clement,  yet  it  is  evi- 
dent that  this  appeal  to  the  authority  of  a 
particular  Apostle  —  one  of  whom  scarcely 
any  thing  is  now  known,  and  of  whom  it  fol- 
lows that  scarcely  any  thing  was  known  in  the 
second  century  —  proves  that  the  Gnostics  did 
not  appeal  with  any  confidence  to  the  author- 
ity of  the  other  Apostles. 

Irenaeus  earnestly  opposes  the  doctrine  of  a 
secret  oral   tradition.^     But  it  was  maintained 

*  Clement.  AL  Stromal.  AIL  ^  17.  p.  898. 

f  Ibid.  p.  900,  X  Acts  i.  26. 

§  Cont.  Haeres.  Lib.  III.  capp.  2-4.  pp.  174-179. 


GENUINENESS  OF  THE  GOSPELS.         201 

by  Clement  as  expressly  and  fully  as  by  the 
Gnostics.  It  was  altogether  consistent  with 
his  conceptions,  before  explained,*  that  the 
more  recondite  truths  of  philosophy  were  to 
be  exhibited  under  a  veil,  and  not  to  be  com- 
municated to  the  generality.  This  higher 
knowledge,  the  philosophy  of  Christianity,  to 
which  he  gave  the  same  name  (yvwaa)  which 
the  Gnostics  gave  to  their  speculations,  he  sup- 
posed was  to  be  attained  only  by  those  who 
were  in  his  view  true  Gnostics  (yvcoa-rcKol),  that 
is,  truly  enlightened.  The  greater  number  of 
Christians  had  only  simple  Faith,  faith  in  the 
essential  truths  of  Christianity,  which  was  suf- 
ficient for  them.  On  this  Faith,  as  its  founda- 
tion, all  higher  knowledge  rested. f  It  was 
the  notion  of  Clement,  that  the  secret  wisdom 
of  which  he  speaks  was  first  communicated 
by  our  Lord  to  Peter,  James,  John,  and  Paul, 
from  whom  it  had  been  transmitted.!  "  Our 
Lord,"  he  says,  "  did  not  at  once  reveal  to 
many  those  truths  which  did  not  belong  to 
many,  but  he  revealed  them  to  a  few  to  whom 


*  See  before,  p.  87,  seqq. 

t  See,   among  many   passages  to  this  effect,    Stromat.    VII. 
pp.  890,  891. 

%  Stromat.  I.  p.  322.     Etiam  apud  Euseb.  Hist.  Eccles.  Lib. 

n.  c.  1. 

VOL.  III.  26 


202  EVIDENCES  OF  THE 

he  knew  them  to  be  adapted,  who  were  capa- 
ble of  receiving  them,  and  of  being  conformed 
to  them.  But  secret  things,  as  God  [meaning, 
I  conceive,  philosophical  speculations  concern- 
ing God],  are  committed  not  to  writing,  but 
to  oral  discourses."  * 

This  notion  of  a  secret  tradition  is  not  found 
in  Justin  Martyr,  Irenaeus,  or  TertuUian.     When 
the   two  latter   speak  of  tradition,  they  mean 
that  traditionary  knowledge  of  the  history  and 
doctrines  of  Christianity  which  necessarily  ex- 
isted  among   Christians.       It   is   described    by 
Irenaeus    as    a    "  tradition   manifest   throughout 
the  world,  and  to  be  found  in  every  church."  f 
By   it,  he    says,  a  knowledge   of  our   religion 
was  preserved  without  books  among  believers 
in    barbarous    nations. J     At   the   end  of  about 
a   century   from   the    preaching   of    the    Apos- 
tles,   there    must    have    been,    throughout    the 
communities  which  they  had  formed,  a  general 
acquaintance  with  what  they  had  taught,  even 
had   no   written   records   of  our   religion    been 
extant.     In  regard,  likewise,  to  facts,  important 
in  their  reference  to  Christianity,  as,  for  exam- 
ple, the  genuineness  of  the  books  of  the  New 


*  Stromal.  I.  p.  323.  t  Lib-  HI-  c.  3.  ^  1.  p.  175. 

X  Ibid.  c.  4.  ^  2.  p.  178. 


GENUINENESS  OF  THE  GOSPELS.  203 

Testament,  the  Christians  of  the  last  half  of 
the  second  century  must  have  relied  on  the 
testimony  of  their  predecessors.  It  is  this  tra- 
ditionary knowledge  concerning  Christianity, 
not  secret,  but  open  to  all,  which  Irenaeus 
and  TertulJian  appeal  to,  with  justifiable  con- 
fidence, in  their  reasonings  against  the  her- 
etics, when  they  distinguish  between  the  ev- 
idence from  tradition  and  the  evidence  from 
Scripture.  The  tradition  of  which  they  speak 
is  altogether  different  from  the  secret  tradition 
of  Clement. 

The  origin  of  the  opinion  common  to  Clem- 
ent and  to  the  theosophic  Gnostics  may  be 
explained  by  the  supposition,  that  inferences, 
true  or  false,  from  the  truths  taught  by  Christ 
and  his  Apostles,  and  theories  built  on  those 
truths,  were  conceived  of,  and  represented,  as 
having  been  taught  by  them ;  and,  since  it 
did  not  appear  that  they  made  a  part  of  their 
public  teaching,  the  notion  in  consequence 
grew  up,  that  they  were  taught  by  them  pri- 
vately. This  notion  would  ally  itself  with  the 
conceptions  of  both  Clement  and  the  Gnostics 
concerning  that  higher  esoteric  wisdom  which 
few  only  were  capable  of  receiving.  In  hold- 
ing their  common  belief,  it  is  probable  that 
neither  had  a  distinct  conception  of  what  was 


204  EVIDENCES  OF  THE 

embraced  in  the  tradition  the  existence  of  which 
they  asserted.  It  appears  from  the  whole  tenor 
of  the  Stromata  of  Clement,  that,  in  his  view, 
the  true  knowledge,  which,  in  union  with  ac- 
cordant virtues,  constituted  an  enlightened  Chris- 
tian (his  Gnostic),  in  the  highest  sense  of  the 
words,  comprehended  the  whole  compass  of 
intellectual  philosophy,  and  particularly  all  that 
can  be  known  by  men  respecting  the  nature, 
attributes,  and  operations  of  God.*     If  he  had 

*  Instead  of  producing  at  length  the  authorities  and  reasons  for 
this  statement,  which  would  carry  us  too  far  away  from  our  main 
purpose,  I  will  quote  a  few  sentences  from  the  valuable  work  of 
the  present  Bishop  of  Lincoln  (Dr.  Kaye),  entitled  "  Some  Ac- 
count of  the  Writings  and  Opinions  of  Clement  of  Alexandria." 
It  is  the  most  important  work  on  the  subject  of  which  it  treats. 
The  author  says  (pp.  238  -241)  :  — 

"  By  yvaais  [the  higher  esoteric  knowledge]  Clement  under- 
stood the  perfect  knowledge  of  all  that  relates  to  God,  his  nature 
and  dispensations The  Gnostic  [Clement's  Gnostic]  com- 
prehends not  only  the  First  Cause  and  the  Cause  begotten  by 
him  [the  Logos],  and  is  fixed  in  his  notions  concerning  them,  pos- 
sessing firm  and  immovable  jeasons ;  but  also,  having  learned  from 
the  truth  itself,,  he  possesses  the  most  accurate  truth,  from  the 
foundation  of  the  world  to  the  end,  concerning  good  and  evil, 
and  the  whole  creation,  and,  in  a  word,  concerning  all  which  the 

Lord  spake With  respect  to  the  source  from  which  this 

knowledge  is  derived,  Clement  says  that  '  it  was  imparted  by 
Christ  to  Peter,  James,  John,  and  Paul,  and  by  them  delivered 
down  to  their  successors  in  the  Church.  It  was  not  designed  for 
the  multitude,  but  communicated  to  those  only  who  were  capable 
of  recei\ang  it ;  orally,  not  by  writing.'  " 

The  notions  of  Clement  respecting  this  secret  tradition  are  not 


GENUINENESS  OF  THE  GOSPELS.  205 

been  asked,  whether  he  believed  that  all  this 
knowledge  had  been  handed  down  by  a  se- 
cret tradition,  the  question  might  have  pre- 
sented the  subject  to  his  mind  under  a  new 
aspect,  but  he  undoubtedly  would  have  an- 
swered in  the  negative.  Had  he  then  been 
requested  to  point  out  what  particular  part  of 
it  he  conceived  to  have  been  thus  handed  down, 
I  think  he  would  have  been  embarrassed  by  the 
inquiry. 

In  connection  with  their  notion  of  a  secret 
tradition,  the  Gnostics,  or  some  of  the  Gnos- 
tics, said,  according  to  Irenseus,  "  that  the 
Apostles,  practising  dissimulation,  accommo- 
dated   their   doctrine  to   the   capacity  of  their 


only  to  be  distinguished  from  the  reasonable  conceptions  of  other 
fathers  respecting  that  public  traditionary  knowledge  concerning 
Christianity  which  necessarily  existed  among  Christians,  but 
equally  also  from  an  opinion  which  began  to  prevail  in  the  latter 
half  of  the  fourth  century,  and  which  has  become  fundamental  in 
the  Roman  Catholic  Church.  This  opinion  is,  that  certain  doc- 
trines and  rites,  which  are  not  to  be  kept  secret,  but  are  to  be 
made  known  to  all,  and  to  be  believed  or  practised  by  all,  are  not 
expressly  taught  or  enjoined  in  the  New  Testament,  but  are  de- 
rived from  the  oral  teaching  or  the  appointment  of  Christ  or  his 
Apostles,  a  knowledge  of  which  has  been  preserved  by  tradition. 
This  principle  was,  perhaps,  first  clearly  avowed  by  Basil  of 
Cfesarea,  in  the  latter  half  of  the  fourth  century,  in  his  treatise 
Concerning  the  Holy  Spirit. 


206  EVIDENCES  OF  THE 

hearers,  and  their  answers  to  the  previous  con- 
ceptions of  those  who  questioned  them,  talking 
blindly  with  the  blind,  weakly  with  the  weak, 
and  conformably  to  their  error  with  those  who 
were  in  error,  and  that  thus  they  preached  the 
Creator  to  those  who  thought  that  the  Crea- 
tor was  the  only  God,  but  to  those  able  to 
comprehend  the  unknown  Father  they  com- 
municated this  unspeakable  mystery  in  para- 
bles and  enigmas."  *  "  Some,"  says  Irengeus, 
"  impudently  contend,  that  the  Apostles,  preach- 
ing among  the  Jews,  could  not  announce  any 
other  God  but  him  in  whom  the  Jews  had  be- 
lieved." t 

Again  ;  some  of  the  Gnostics,  especially  the 
Marcionites,  maintained  that  Paul  was  far  su- 
perior to  the  other  Apostles  in  the  knowledge 
of  the  truth,  — "  the  hidden  doctrine  having 
been  manifested  to  him  by  revelation."  t  They 
represented  the  other  Apostles  as  having  been 
entangled  by  Jewish  prejudices,  from  which  he 
was  in  a  great  measure  free.  Hence  Tertul- 
lian,  in  one   place,  calls  him   "  the  Apostle  of 


*  Lib.  m.  cap.  5.  §  1.  p.  179. 
t  Ibid.  cap.  12.  ^  6.  p.  195. 
X  Ibid.  c.  13.  ^  1.  p.  200. 


GENUINENESS  OF  THE  GOSPELS.         207 

the  Heretics."  *  In  support  of  this  opinion, 
Marcion  relied  much  on  that  passage  in  the 
Epistle  to  the  Galatians  f  in  which  Paul  rep- 
resents himself  as  having  reproved  Peter  and 
Barnabas  for  not  acting  conformably  to  the 
principles  of  Christianity,  but  by  their  conduct 
"  compelling  the  Gentiles  to  Judaize,"  that  is, 
to  observe  the  Levitical  Law.f  Marcion  re- 
garded the  Gospels  as  expressing  the  false 
Jew^ish  opinions  of  their  w^riters.  But  among 
the  Gospels  he  conceived  that  there  was  ground 
for  making  a  choice  ;  and  he  selected,  for  his 
own  use  and  that  of  his  followers,  the  Gospel 
of  Luke,  the  companion  of  Paul.  This  he 
further  adapted  to  his  purpose  by  rejecting  from 
it  what  he  viewed  as  conformed  to  those  opin- 
ions. Nor  did  he  consider  Paul  himself  as 
wholly  free  from  Jewish  errors,  but  likewise 
struck  out,  from  those  of  his  Epistles  which  he 
used,  the  passages  in  which  he  thought  them 
to  be  expressed. 

Sometimes,  according  to  Irenseus,  the  Gnos- 
tics, apparently  without  making  an  exception 
in  favor  of  St.  Paul,  charged  the  Apostles  gen- 

*  Advers.  Marcion.  Lib.  IIL  c.  5.  p.  399. 
f  Ch.  ii.  11,  seqq. 

X  Advers.  Marcion.  Lib.  IV.  c.  3.  pp.  414,  415.     Lib.  I.  c.  20. 
p.  37.5.     Conf.  De  Prsescript.  Hseretic.  c.  23.  p.  210. 


208  EVIDENCES  OF  THE 

erally  with  Jewish  errors  and  ignorance  concern- 
ing the  higher  truths  and  mysteries  of  religion. 
"All  those,"  he  says,  "  who  hold  pernicious  doc- 
trines, have  departed  in  their  faith  from  Him  who 
is  God,  and  think  that  they  have  found  out  more 
than  the  Apostles,  having  discovered  another 
God.  They  think  that  the  Apostles  preached 
the  Gospel  while  yet  under  the  influence  of 
Jewish  prejudices,  but  that  their  own  faith  is 
purer,  and  that  they  are  wiser  than  the  Apos- 
tles." He  states  that  Marcion  proceeded  on 
these  principles  in  rejecting  the  use  of  some  of 
the  books  of  Scripture,  and  of  portions  of  those 
which  he  retained.*  "  The  heretics,"  says  Ter- 
tullian,  "are  accustomed  to  affirm  that  the  Apos- 
tles did  not  know  all  things  ;  while  at  other 
times,  under  the  influence  of  the  same  madness, 
they  turn  about,  and  maintain  that  the  Apostles 
did,  indeed,  know  all  things,  but  did  not  teach 
all  things  to  all."t  "I  cannot  help  wondering," 
says  Clement  of  Alexandria,  "  how  some  dare 
to  call  themselves  perfect,  and  Gnostics,  think- 
ing themselves  superior  to  the  Apostles."  J 
But  the  theosophic  Gnostics  did  not  stop  here. 


*  Lib.  m.  c.  12.  §  12.  p.  198. 

f  De  Praescript.  Haeretic.  c.  22.  p.  209. 

%  Paedagogus,  Lib.  L  c.  6.  pp.  128,  129. 


GENUINENESS  OF  THE  GOSPELS.         209 

Irenseus,  after  saying  that  the  heretics,  when 
confuted  from  the  Scriptures,  appealed  to  oral 
tradition,  goes  on  thus  :  —  "  But  when  we,  on 
the  other  hand,  appeal  to  that  tradition  which, 
proceeding  from  the  Apostles,  has  been  pre- 
served in  the  Church  by  a  succession  of  Elders, 
then  they  oppose  tradition,  saying  that  they, 
being  not  only  wiser  than  the  Elders,  but  wiser 
than  the  Apostles,  have  discovered  the  pure 
truth.  For  the  Apostles,  they  say,  mixed  their 
legal  notions  with  the  words  of  the  Saviour  ; 
and  not  only  the  Apostles,  but  the  Lord  him- 
self spoke  sometimes  from  the  Creator  [as  the 
Messiah  of  the  Creator],  sometimes  from  the 
Middle  Space  [that  is,  conformably  to  the  spir- 
itual nature  which  he  had  derived  from  Acha- 
moth],  and  sometimes  from  the  highest  height 
[as  the  Mon  Christ  from  the  Pleroma]  ;  *  but 


*  See  before,  pp.  166,  171.  —  According  to  the  verbal  con- 
struction of  the  old  Latin  Translation  of  Irenseus,  which  is  here 
our  authority,  and  which  I  have  followed  in  my  translation, 
though  not  in  my  exposition,  these  clauses  apply  equally  to  the 
Apostles  as  to  Christ.  But  I  cannot  think  that  this  meaning  was 
intended  by  Irenaus,  or,  at  least,  that  this  was  the  meaning  of  the 
Gnostics.  Irenasus  elsewhere  (Lib.  I.  c.  7.  §  3.  p.  34)  gives  a 
similar  account  of  their  opinions  respecting  the  preaching  of 
Christ,  without  mentioning  the  Apostles.  Nor  is  there  any 
probability  that  the  Gnostics  believed  in  the  inspiration  of  men 
from  the  Pleroma,  which  opinion  would  be  implied  in  the  sup- 

voL.  III.  27 


210  EVroENCES  OF  THE 

that  they  themselves  know  with  full  assurance 
the  hidden  mystery,  unmixed,  in  all  its  purity."* 
The  opinion  of  the  Gnostics,  here  expressed, 
concerning  the  discourses  of  Christ  is  analogous 
to  the  Orthodox  doctrine,  still  extant,  that  he 
spoke  sometimes  as  a  man,  sometimes  as  God, 
and  sometimes  in  his  mediatorial  character,  as 
neither  God  nor  man  simply,  but  as  both  united; 
and  that  as  a  man  he  was  ignorant  of  what, 
being  God,  he  knew. 

There  is  nothing  to  object  to  the  general 
proposition  of  the  Gnostics,  that  the  Apostles 
were  under  the  influence  of  Jewish  prejudices, 
nor  to  the  proof  which  they  brought  of  this  fact 
from  the  conduct  of  Peter  and  Barnabas,  which 
was  reproved  by  Paul.  Their  extravagance 
consisted  in  the  irrational  misapplication  which 
they  made  of  this  principle.  The  spirit  of  God, 
which  enlightened  the  minds  of  the  Apostles 
as  to  all  essential  truths  of  religion,  did  not 
deliver  them  from  all  error,  and  transform  them 
into  all-wise  and  all-knowing  philosophers.  But, 
if  the  Apostles  were  liable  to  any  errors,  they 
were   particularly  exposed   to  the  influence   of 


position  that  the  Apostles  sometimes  spoke  "  from  the  highest 
height." 

*  Lib.  III.  c.  2.  §  2.  p.  175. 


GENUINENESS  OF  THE  GOSPELS.         211 

those  in  which  they  had  been  educated,  and 
could  hardly  escape  being  more  or  less  affected 
by  the  inveterate  conceptions  and  errors  of 
their  countrymen.  It  being  the  object  of  the 
Gnostics  to  separate  Judaism  from  Christianity, 
and  to  distinguish  the  God  of  the  Jews  from 
the  God  of  Christians,  they  naturally  seized 
upon  this  truth  to  effect  their  purpose  ;  and  as 
no  strongly  marked  line  can  be  drawn,  defin- 
ing the  sphere  within  which  alone  the  Apos- 
tles were  liable  to  error,  they  applied,  or  rather 
misapplied,  a  principle  correct  in  itself,  to  all 
cases  in  which  the  words  of  the  Apostles  so 
explicitly  contradicted  their  doctrine  as  to  be 
incapable  by  any  force  of  being  conformed 
to  it. 

It  remains  to  add  a  few  words  concerning 
the  belief  of  the  theosophic  Gnostics  in  their 
own  infallible  spiritual  knowledge.  This  they 
conceived  of  as  the  result  of  their  spiritual 
nature.  "  They  object  to  us,"  says  Clement 
of  Alexandria,  "  that  we  are  of  another  nature, 
and  unable  to  comprehend  their  peculiar  doc- 
trines." *  A  similar  pretension  to  that  of  the 
Gnostics  has  been  common  among  Christians. 


*  Stromal.  VII.  §  16.  pp.  891,  892. 


212  EVIDENCES  OF  THE 

An  essential  doctrine  of  the  Roman  Catholic 
Church  is  its  own  infallibility,  an  infallibility 
which  must  reside  in  some  of  its  individual 
members.  Among  the  sects  into  which  Prot- 
estants have  been  divided,  the  generality  have, 
at  least  in  the  earlier  stages  of  their  growth, 
maintained  the  principle,  expressed  in  the  per- 
verted language  of  St.  Paul,  that  spiritual  things 
are  spiritually  discerned,  and  have,  of  course, 
confined  this  unerring  spiritual  discernment  to 
themselves.  Calvin  taught  that  "  the  first  step 
in  the  school  of  the  Lord  is  to  renounce  human 
reason.*  For,  as  if  a  veil  were  interposed,  it 
hinders  us  from  attaining  to  the  mysteries  of 
God,  which  are  not  revealed  but  to  little  chil- 
dren " ;  t  and  after  these  words,  he  proceeds 
to  quote,  as  might  be  expected,  the  often-quoted 
passage  of  St.  Paul  just  referred  to.  Even 
the  genuineness  and  inspiration  of  the  books 
of  the  Bible,  or,  as  he  expresses  it,  the  fact 
that  they  "  had  proceeded  from  the  very  mouth 
of  God  "  {ah  ipsissimo  Dei  ore  fluxisse),  "  were 
not  to  be  submitted  to  reasoning  and  argu- 
ments," but  were  spiritually  discerned  ;  so  as 
to  be  known  with  the  same  certaintv   as  men 


*  "  Humana  perspicacia." 
t  Institut.  Lib.  IH.  c.  2.  §  34. 


GENUINENESS   OF  THE  GOSPELS.         213 

know  that  black  is  not  white,  and  sweet  is 
not  bitter.*  The  theosophic  Gnostics,  in  ex- 
pressing their  sense  of  the  incapacity  of  com- 
mon Christians  to  understand  their  doctrines, 
could  not  have  used  stronger  language  than 
that  of  Calvin  concerning  the  natural  blind- 
ness of  the  unregenerate  to  the  truths  of  re- 
hgion.  It  was,  in  his  view,  the  spiritual  il- 
lumination of  the  elect,  which  enabled  them 
clearly  to  discern  these  truths ;  or,  in  other 
words,  clearly  to  discern  the  identity  of  the 
system  which  he  taught  with  the  teachings  of 
Christ. 

The  Gnostics,  as  we  have  seen,  were  equally 
able  with  Calvin  to  identify  their  systems  with 
Christianity.  In  the  modes  by  which  they 
effected  their  purpose,  we  may  observe  the 
same  operations  of  the  human  mind  as  have 
been  going  on  from  their  day  to  our  own. 
One  of  the  most  effectual  means  of  checking 
their  further  progress  is  by  directing  attention 
to  the  extravagances  to  which  they  lead.  It 
is  a  main  advantage  resulting  from  the  study 
of  obsolete  errors,  and  one  which  this  study 
alone  can  furnish,  that,  as  we  have  no  preju- 

•  *  Ibid.  Lib.  I.  c.  7. 


214  EVIDENCES  OF  THE 

dices  in  their  favor,  we  are  able,  without  dis- 
turbance, to  trace  them  to  their  sources ;  and 
when  those  sources  are  discovered,  we  may 
perceive  that  they  are  still  in  full  action,  pro- 
ducing new  errors,  or  more  commonly,  per- 
haps, reproducing  old  ones  under  a  new  form. 
It  may  be  doubted  whether  a  History  of  Hu- 
man Folly  would  not  be  a  more  instructive 
work  than  our  Histories  of  Philosophy ;  but 
its  contents  would  not  be  throughout  so  differ- 
ent from  theirs  as  its  different  title  might  lead 
one  to  expect. 

Among  the  Gospels,  the  Marcionites  used 
only  their  copy  of  that  of  Luke.  To  this 
they  joined  ten  Epistles  of  St.  Paul,  from 
which,  as  from  the  Gospel,  they  rejected  cer- 
tain passages,  as  I  have  before  mentioned. 
On  this  history  of  Christ,  and  on  these  Epis- 
tles, they  founded  their  system,  and  from  them 
they  reasoned.  They  appealed  to  them  as 
freely  and  confidently  as  did  the  catholic  Chris- 
tians, and  the  theosophic  Gnostics,  to  the  books 
of  the  New  Testament  in  general.  The  ar- 
guments which  they  drew  from  them  are  pre- 
sented to  view  in  the  writings  of  their  op- 
ponents, especially  of  Tertullian.  From  those 
books  they  derived   their  knowledge  of  Christ 


GENUINENESS  OF  THE  GOSPELS.         215 

and  of  Christianity.  It  does  not  appear  that 
they  made  a  pretence  to  any  exckisive  spirit- 
ual discernment,  or  that  they  reUed  on  any 
secret  tradition.  It  does  appear  that  they 
made  no  use  of  any  other  history  of  Christ 
besides  the  Gospel  of  Luke.  No  apocryphal 
gospel  is  said  to  have  been  extant  among  them. 
They  are  never  charged  with  having  rested 
their  system,  vrholly  or  in  part,  on  any  such 
gospel.  But,  had  there  been  ground  for  the 
charge,  it  w^ould  undoubtedly  have  been  made. 
The  controversy  between  them  and  the  cath- 
olic Christians  would  have  brought  out  such  a 
fact  with  the  broadest  distinctness.  It  would 
have  been,  to  say  the  least,  as  much  insisted 
upon  as  the  fact  that  they  struck  out  some 
passages  from  the  Gospel  of  Luke  and  the 
Epistles  of  Paul,  notices  of  which  are  contin- 
ually recurring  in  the  writings  of  their  oppo- 
nents. Those  passages  the  Marcionites  re- 
jected, and  they  disavowed  the  authority  of  the 
other  three  Gospels,  —  not  on  the  ground  that 
they  were  not  genuine,  but  because,  believ- 
ing them  to  be  genuine,  they  believed  their 
authors  to  be  under  the  influence  of  Jewish 
prejudices. 

But  were  those  which  have  been  mentioned 


216  EVIDENCES   OF  THE 

the  only  means  that  the  Gnostics  made  use  of 
to  find  support  for  their  systems  in  the  real  or 
supposed  teaching  of  Christ  ?  Had  they  not, 
as  has  been  imagined,  gospels  of  their  own, 
presenting  a  view  of  his  ministry  and  instruc- 
tions, different  from  that  contained  in  the  cath- 
olic Gospels  ;  —  accounts  of  Christ,  which  they 
preferred  and  opposed  to  those  given  by  the 
Evangelists  ?  Every  one  has  heard  of  apocry- 
phal and  Gnostic  gospels. 

As  regards  the  Marcionites,  these  questions 
have  been  answered.  It  is  evident  that  they 
had  no  such  gospels  or  gospel.  Those  theo- 
sophic  Gnostics,  who  adopted  the  means  that 
have  been  explained  of  reconciling  their  doc- 
trines with  Christianity,  could,  likewise,  have 
had  no  such  gospels.  It  has  appeared,  not 
only  in  the  present  Chapter,  but  throughout 
this  work,  that  their  systems,  equally  with  the 
faith  of  the  catholic  Christians,  were  founded 
on  the  common  account  of  Christ's  ministry. 
In  their  reasonings,  they  constantly  referred  to 
the  Gospels.  They  therefore  could  have  re- 
ceived as  of  authority  no  history  of  his  min- 
istry which  varied  essentially  from  those  Gos- 
pels. Whether  they  had  any  other  histories 
of  his  ministry,  which  did  not  vary  essentially 
from  the  Gospels,  is  an  unimportant  question. 


GENUINENESS  OF  THE  GOSPELS.  217 

SO  far  as  it  regards  the  main  purpose  which 
we  have  in  view.  For,  if  those  histories  pro- 
ceeded from  authors  who  wrote  from  inde- 
pendent sources  of  information,  they  would 
serve,  by  their  agreement,  to  confirm  the  ac- 
counts of  the  catholic  Gospels  ;  while,  if  they 
were  merely  founded  on  those  Gospels,  or  on 
some  one  of  them,  they  would  serve  to  show 
the  authority  which  the  latter  had  very  early 
attained. 

But  a  question  may  be  virtually  settled  with- 
out- all  the  explanation  having  been  given 
which  is  necessary  to  our  satisfaction,  and  to 
a  full  understanding  of  the  subject.  After 
all  that  has  appeared,  the  inquiry  may  still 
recur.  What,  then,  were  those  apocryphal  and 
Gnostic  gospels  about  which  so  much  has  been 
said  ?  To  this  inquiry  I  propose  to  give  an 
answer  in  the  next  Chapter. 


28 


CHAPTER    XII. 

ON     THE     QUESTION,    WHETHER     THE     GNOSTICS    OPPOSED    TO 
THE    FOUR   GOSPELS    ANY    OTHER    WRITTEN    HISTORIES    OR 

HISTORY  OF  Christ's  ministry. 

This  question  will  lead  us  to  consider  all 
those  books  that  have  been  called  apocryphal 
gospels  which  we  have  any  reason  for  sup- 
posing to  have  been  extant  during  the  first 
two  centuries,  except  the  Gospel  of  the  He- 
brews and  the  Gospel  of  Marcion.  We  have 
already  seen  the  grounds  for  believing  that  the 
former,  as  it  was  first  used  by  the  Hebrew 
Christians,  was  the  Hebrew  original  of  the 
Gospel  of  Matthew,  though  its  text,  in  some 
or  many  copies,  may  have  afterwards  become 
much  corrupted.*  The  latter  was  merely  the 
Gospel  of  Luke  mutilated  by  Marcion. f  The 
authority  of  neither  of  these  books,  therefore, 
could  be  opposed  to  that  of  the  catholic  Gos- 
pels ;  nor  can  the  epithet  apocryphal,  with 
its  common  associations,  be  properly  applied 
to  them.     No  book  which  was  not  in  existence 

*  See  Vol.  I.  p.  xlv.,  seqq.  f  See  Additional  Note,  C. 


GENUINENESS  OF  THE  GOSPELS.  219 

till  after  the  end  of  the  second  century  could 
have  been  used  by  the  Gnostics  as  a  basis  for 
their  opinions,  or  could,  by  any  sect  whatever, 
have  been  brought  into  competition  with  the 
four  Gospels,  as  an  original  history  of  Christ's 
ministry.  All  that  is  necessary  to  be  said  in 
direct  reply  to  the  question  proposed  lies  with- 
in a  small  compass.  But  the  subject  of  apoc- 
ryphal gospels,  as  well  as  that  of  apocryphal 
books  in  general,  has  been  treated  in  such  a 
manner  as  necessarily  to  produce  confused  and 
erroneous  conceptions  respecting  them.  It  is 
a  subject  which  demands  explanation,  where 
argument  is  not  needed  ;  and  the  inquiry  on 
which  we  are  about  to  enter  will,  through  its 
incidental  relations,  extend  much  beyond  the 
second  century,  and  embrace  books  which  were 
not  extant  till  long  after  that  period.* 

*  In  respect  to  the  apocryphal  gospels,  the  modern  writer 
whose  information  is  principally  relied  on  is  Fabricius.  In  his 
"  Codex  Apocryphus  Novi  Testament!,"  he  has  given  a  full  and 
accurate  account  of  all  the  passages  relating  to  them  which  are 
to  be  found  in  ancient  writers.  I  say,  "  a  full  and  accurate 
account "  ;  because  his  work  has  now  sustained  that  reputation 
unquestioned  for  more  than  a  century.  —  Fabricius,  however,  has 
merely  brought  together  a  mass  of  materials,  without  applying 
them  to  the  illustration  of  any  fact  whatever.  He  has  not 
arranged  the  books  which  he  treats  of  chronologically,  with  refer- 
ence to  the  period  when  they  are  first  mentioned,  or  when  they 
may  be  supposed  to  have  appeared.     Such  an  arrangement  would 


220  EVIDENCES  OF  THE 

I  BEGIN  by  Stating  the  most  important  con- 
siderations respecting  the  question  proposed ; 
and  I  hope  to  be  excused  for  some  repetition 
in  hereafter  recalling  attention  to  them  with 
reference  to  different  writings. 

at  once  show  that  far  the  greater  number  deserve  no  considera- 
tion from  any  supposable  bearing  on  the  authority  of  the  Gospels. 
He  has  arranged  them  in  the  alphabetical  order  of  their  titles, 
which  tends  to  produce  the  impression,  that  they  all  equally  de- 
serve attention. 

Fabricius  was  followed  by  Jones  in  the  first  two  volumes  of  his 
"  New  and  Full  Method  of  settling  the  Canonical  Authority  of 
the  New  Testament."  But  the  principal  value  of  Jones's  work 
consists  in  its  giving  in  an  English  dress  the  information  to  be 
found  in  Fabricius,  and  in  the  republication  of  some  of  the  later 
apocryphal  writings  (also  published  by  Fabricius)  with  English 
translations.  He  had  no  clear  comprehension  of  his  own  purpose 
in  writing  ;  and  his  views  and  reasonings  only  tend  to  perplex  the 
subject.  He  follows  Fabricius  in  arranging  the  books  in  the 
alphabetical  order  of  their  titles. 

In  1832,  J.  C.  Thilo  published  the  first  volume  of  his  "  Codex 
Apocryphus  Novi  Testamenti,"  a  work  commenced  on  an  exten- 
sive plan,  but  of  which  no  other  portion  has  appeared.  The  first 
volume  contains  the  later  apocryphal  writings,  which  had  pre- 
viously been  published,  with  others  in  addition,  —  all  apparently 
edited  in  a  careful  and  thorough  manner,  with  Prolegomena  and 
notes.  It  contains  also  the  Gospel  of  Luke  used  by  Mai-cion,  as 
restored  by  Plahn,  who  has  made  Marcion's  Gospel  a  particular 
subject  of  study. 

I  shall  refer  to  the  three  works  which  I  have  mentioned  by  the 
names  of  their  respective  authors.  The  copy  of  Fabricius  which 
I  use  is  of  the  second  edition,  printed  in  1719,  in  three  parts. 
That  of  Jones  is  of  the  Oxford  edition,  printed  in  1798. 


GENUINENESS   OF   THE  GOSPELS.  221 

Of  the  controversy  carried  on  by  the  cath- 
olic Christians  with  the  Valentinians  and  the 
Marcionites,  we  have,  as  has  been  seen,  abun- 
dant remains.  The  opinions  and  arguments 
of  those  heretics  are  brought  forward  in  order 
to  be  confuted ;  and  though  we  may  not  re- 
gard them  as  fully  and  fairly  stated,  yet,  on 
the  other  hand,  it  cannot  be  supposed  that 
any  striking  peculiarity  in  their  opinions,  or 
any  main  topic  of  their  reasoning,  has  been 
passed  over  in  silence.  If  they  had  opposed 
other  histories  of  Christ  to  the  four  Gospels, 
if  they  had  relied  for  the  support  of  their  sys- 
tems on  accounts  of  his  ministry  different  from 
those  we  now  possess,  we  should  find  abundant 
notices  of  the  fact.  If  they  and  the  catholic 
Christians  had  been  at  issue  on  the  question, 
Which  among  discordant  histories  of  Christ  was 
to  be  received  as  authentic,  this  would  neces- 
sarily have  been  the  main  point  in  controversy, 
the  question  to  be  settled  before  all  others. 
We  find  in  the  case  of  the  Marcionites,  that 
their  confining  themselves  to  the  use  of  a  mu- 
tilated copy  of  Luke's  Gospel  is  a  circum- 
stance continually  presented  to  view  ;  and  we 
have  particular  notices  of  the  use  which  other 
heretics  made  of  a  few  passages  relating  to 
Christ,  not  found  in  the  Evangelists.     The  fa- 


EVIDENCES  OF  THE 

thers  were  eager  to  urge  against  the  Gnostics 
the  charges  of  corrupting  and  contemning  the 
Scriptures,  and  of  fabricating  apocryphal  writ- 
ings. Had  there  been  occasion  to  make  it, 
they  would  not  have  passed  over  what  in  their 
view  would  have  been  a  far  graver  allegation, 
that  the  Gnostics  pretended  to  set  up  other 
histories  of  Christ  in  opposition  to  those  re- 
ceived by  the  great  body  of  Christians.  Such 
a  fact,  from  its  very  nature,  neither  would  nor 
could  have  remained  unnoticed.  Abundant  evi- 
dence of  it  must  have  come  down  to  us  ;  and 
if  no  evidence  is  to  be  found,  we  may  con- 
clude without  hesitation,  that  the  Gnostics  made 
no  pretence  to  having  more  authentic  histories 
of  Christ  than  the  Gospels. 

What,  then,  is  the  state  of  the  case  ?  I 
answer,  in  the  first  place,  that  Ireneeus  and 
Tertullian  were  the  two  principal  writers  against 
the  Gnostics,  and  from  their  works  it  does  not 
appear  that  the  Valentinians,  the  Marcionites, 
or  any  other  Gnostic  sect,  adduced  in  support 
of  their  opinions  a  single  narrative  relating  to 
the  public  ministry  of  Christ  besides  what  is 
found  in  the  Gospels.  It  does  not  appear  that 
they  ascribed  to  him  a  single  sentence  of  any 
imaginable  importance  which  the  Evangelists 
have    not    transmitted.       It    does    not    appear 


GENUINENESS   OF   THE  GOSPELS.  223 

that  any  sect  appealed  to  the  authority  of  any 
history  of  his  public  ministry  besides  the  Gos- 
pels, except  so  far  as  the  Marcionites,  in  their 
use  of  an  imperfect  copy  of  St.  Luke's  Gos- 
pel, may  be  regarded  as  forming  a  verbal  ex- 
ception to  this  remark.  The  question,  then, 
which  we  have  proposed  for  consideration, 
would  seem  to  be  settled.  The  Gnostics  did 
not  oppose  any  other  history  of  Christ  to  the 
catholic  Gospels.  Had  they  done  so,  it  is  alto- 
gether incredible  that  the  fact  should  not  have 
been  conspicuous  throughout  the  controversial 
writings  of  Irenaeus  and  Tertullian. 

But  what,  then,  were  those  ancient  books 
which  have  been  called  "  apocryphal  gospels  "  ? 
I  answer,  that,  with  the  exception  of  the  Gos- 
pel of  the  Hebrews,  the  Gospel  of  Marcion, 
and  a  narrative  which  Tatian  formed  out  of 
the  four  Evangelists,  it  is  not  probable  that 
any  one  of  them  was  a  professed  history  of 
Christ's  ministry.  The  main  evidence  of  this 
fact  will  appear  from  a  particular  examination 
of  the  accounts  which  have  been  given  of  them. 
But  it  may  be  here  observed,  that  the  name 
"  gospel,"  signifying  in  its  primary  meaning 
"  a  joyful  message,"  "  glad  news,"  was  given 
as  a  title  to  the  works  of  the  Evangelists,  be- 
cause they  contained  an  account  of  the  joyful 


224  EVIDENCES  OF  THE 

message  which  Christ  gave  from  Heaven  to 
men.  It  but  indirectly  denoted  their  charac- 
ter as  histories  of  his  ministry.  The  name 
"  gospel "  has  ever  been  used  to  signify  the 
whole  scheme  of  Christianity ;  and  a  book, 
containing  the  views  of  its  writer  concerning 
this  system,  or  the  views  ascribed  by  him  to 
a  particular  Apostle,  might  hence  be  entitled 
his  gospel,  or  denominated  by  him  the  gospel 
of  that  Apostle.  There  was  a  book  in  com- 
mon use  among  the  Manichaeans,  called  a  gos- 
pel, which,  as  Cyril  of  Jerusalem  expressly 
mentions,  contained  no  account  of  the  actions 
of  Christ.*  In  later  times,  in  the  latter  part 
of  the  seventeenth  century,  a  book  was  pub- 
lished by  Dr.  Arthur  Bury,  which  he  entitled 
"The  Naked  Gospel."  Another  work  appeared 
about  the  same  time  in  Germany,  which  was 
called  "  The  Eternal  Gospel " ;  and  another 
with  the  same  title  was  produced  in  the  thir- 
teenth century.f  It  is  not  improbable,  likewise, 
that  the  fathers  may  have  used  the  term  "  gos- 
pel "  in  the  same  way  in  which  it  has  been 
used   by  controvertists  in  modern  times,  when 


*  It  is  ascribed  by  him  to  Scythianus  as  its  author.     Catache- 
sis,  VI.  §  13.  p.  92. 

t  Fabricius,  I.  337*,  338. 


GENUINENESS  OF  THE  GOSPELS.    225 

they  have  charged  their  opponents  with  teach- 
ing "  another  gospel."  There  is  a  French  book 
entitled  "  The  New  Gospel  of  Cardinal  Pal- 
lavicini,  revealed  by  him  in  his  History  of  the 
Council  of  Trent "  ;  *  Scioppius,  in  one  of  his 
letters,  talks  of  "  the  fifth  gospel  of  Luther  "  ;  f 
and  the  Jesuit  Rene  Rapin  published  against 
the  Jansenists  a  work  which  he  called  "  The 
Gospel  of  the  Jansenists."  J  Thus  in  ancient 
times  the  charge  of  teaching  a  new  gospel 
might  occasion  the  title  "  gospel  "  to  be  given 
to  some  book  by  which  it  was  not  assumed  ; 
or  even  lead  to  the  false  supposition,  that 
there  was  some  book  which  bore  that  title, 
or  to  which  it  might  be  applied,  when  no  such 
book  existed.  Among  what  have  been  called 
the  Gnostic  gospels,  we  find,  as  1  have  for- 
merly mentioned,  one  under  the  name  of  "  The 
Gospel  of  Eve,"  probably  used  by  the  Ophi- 
ans,  which  professed  to  contain  that  wisdom 
which  Eve  learned  from  the  Serpent.  This 
gospel,  therefore,  was  not  a  history  of  the  min- 
istry of  Christ.^  Nor  can  we  reasonably  sup- 
pose   that  this   character  was   ascribed    to  an- 


*  Fabricius,  I.  339,  note. 

f  La  Roche's  Memoirs  of  Literature,  Vol.  IL  p.  252. 

I  Fabricius,  I.  339,  note. 

^  See  Vol.  n.  p.  215,  seqq. 

VOL.   III.  29 


226  EVIDENCES  OF  THE 

Other,  said  to  be  in  use  among  the  Cainites, 
called  "  The  Gospel  of  Judas,"  meaning  Ju- 
das Iscariot.*  Epiphanius  mentions  a  book 
as  in  use  among  Gnostics,  which  he  says  was 
named  "  The  Gospel  of  Perfection."  f  Its 
title,  and  the  brief  account  which  he  gives 
of  it,  imply  that  it  was  not  an  historical  book, 
if  indeed  any  such  book  existed.  These  re- 
marks are  merely  preliminary.  As  we  pro- 
ceed, I  trust  it  will  appear  that  there  is  no 
ground  for  believing  that  any  work  which  may 
properly  be  called  a  Gnostic  gospel  was  a 
professed  history  of  Christ's  ministry,  or  that 
any  history  of  his  ministry  was  in  circulation 
during  the  second  century,  among  either  the 
catholic  Christians  or  the  Gnostics,  besides  the 
catholic  Gospels,  and  books,  like  those  of  Mar- 
cion  and  Tatian,  founded  upon  one  or  all  of 
them. 

With  this  understanding  of  what  might  be 
meant  by  the  title  "  gospel,"  let  us  next  in- 
quire what  we  may  find  respecting  Gnostic  or 
apocryphal  gospels  in  Irenaeus  and  Tertullian. 

Tertullian    often   mentions    the    mutilated 


*  Irenaeus,  Lib.  I.  c.  31.  ^  1.  p.  112. 
t  Haeres.  XXVI.  §  2.  p.  83. 


GENUINENESS  OF  THE  GOSPELS.         227 

copy  of  Luke's  Gospel  used  by  the  Marcion- 
ites.  But  this,  as  I  have  said,  should  not 
be  spoken  of  as  an  apocryphal  gospel.  He 
nowhere,  throughout  his  writings,  ascribes  to 
the  Gnostics  the  use  of  any  proper  Gnostic 
gospel,  in  any  sense  of  the  term  "  gospel." 
He  nowhere  speaks  of  any  apocryphal  gos- 
pel whatever,  or  intimates  a  knowledge  of 
the  existence  of  such  a  book.  The  conclu- 
sion is  unavoidable.  Either  he  did  not  know 
of  the  existence  of  any  such  book,  or,  if  he 
did,  he  regarded  it  as  too  obscure  and  unim- 
portant to  deserve  notice.  But  neither  could 
have  been  the  case  in  respect  to  any  book 
which  the  Gnostics  brought  into  competition 
with  the  Gospels. 

Once,  and  once  only,  Irenaeus  speaks  of 
what  he  calls  a  "  gospel,"  as  used  by  the 
Valentinians,  in  addition  to  the  four  Gospels. 
He  thus  expresses  himself  concerning  it :  — 
"  The  followers  of  Valentinus,  throwing  aside 
all  fear,  and  bringing  forward  their  own  com- 
positions, boast  that  they  have  more  gospels 
than  there  are.  For  they  have  proceeded  to 
such  boldness  as  to  entitle  a  book  not  long 
since  written  by  them  '  The  True  Gospel,' 
[verbally  "  The  Gospel  of  the  Truth,"]  a  book 


228  EVIDENCES  OF  THE 

which  agrees  in  no  respect  with  the  Gospels 
of  the  Apostles,  so  that  not  even  the  Gos- 
pel can  exist  among  them  without  blasphemy. 
For,  if  that  which  is  brought  forward  by  them 
be  the  true  Gospel,  but  differ  at  the  same 
time  from  those  Gospels  which  have  been  hand- 
ed down  to  us  by  the  Apostles  (those  who 
wish  may  learn  in  what  manner  from  the  writ- 
ings themselves),  then  it  is  evident  that  the 
Gospel  handed  down  by  the  Apostles  is  not 
the  true  Gospel."  * 

The  Author  of  the  Addition  to  Tertullian, 
probably  copying  Irenaeus,  says,  —  "  Valentinus 
likewise  has  his  gospel  besides  ours."  f  By 
Valentinus  is  here,  I  presume,  meant  the  Val- 
entinians ;  sects  being  not  unfrequently  by 
the  fathers  thus  designated  from  their  lead- 
ers. These  are  the  only  notices  to  be  found 
of    the    Valentinians,    as   a    sect,    having    used 


*  "  Si  enim  quod  ab  iis  profertur  veritatis  est  Evangelium,  dis- 
siraile  est  autem  hoc  illis  [so.  Evangeliis]  quae  ab  Apostolis  nobis 
tradita  sunt ;  (qui  volunt  possunt  discere  quemadmodum  ex  ipsis 
scripturis;)  ostenditur  jam  non  esse  id  quod  ab  Apostolis  traditum 
est  veritatis  Evangelium."  Lib.  III.  c.  11.  §  9.  p.  192.  This 
difficult  passage  may  perhaps  be  thus  arranged  with  a  change  of 
pointing,  a  parenthesis,  and  the  printing  of  scripiuris  without  an 
initial  capital.  But  no  difference  of  arrangement  or  translation  is 
important  as  regards  the  present  subject. 

f  De  Praescript.  Haeretic.  c.  49.  p.  222. 


GENUINENESS  OF  THE  GOSPELS.  229 

any  other  book  called  a  gospel  besides  the  ca- 
nonical Gospels. 

It  is  evident  from   the   passage  of  Irenaeus, 
as  well  as  from   much  other  equally  unequivo- 
cal   testimony,    that   the    Valentinians   received 
the  four  Gospels  in  common  use.     The  charge 
against   them  is,   that  they   had    more    gospels 
than  the  catholic  Christians,  that  is,  one  more. 
This   additional    gospel,    therefore,    could    have 
contained   no   history   of    Christ's    ministry   at 
variance  with  that  in  the  four  Gospels,  which 
they   also   admitted.      But   (if    such   a   gospel 
existed)  there  is  no  probability  that  it  was  an 
historical  book  of  any  sort.     It  was  a  gospel, 
we  may  reasonably  presume,  of  the  kind   be- 
fore described,   containing  an  account  of  what 
its  author  believed   to  be  the  doctrines  of  the 
Gospel.     If  it   had    been  a   history  presenting 
any  additions    to  the  narratives  of  the    Evan- 
gelists, adopted  by  the  Valentinians  to  support 
their  opinions,  they  would  have  quoted  it  for 
this  purpose  ;    and  of  the  additional  accounts, 
and  of  the  arguments  founded  upon  them,  we 
should  have  had  abundant  notices  in  the  writ- 
ings of  their  opponents,   and  in  the   fragments 
still   extant   of  their   own.     But  there  are  no 
such  notices  whatever. 

Such  is  the  state  of  the  case,  if  the  Valen- 


230  EVIDENCES  OF  THE 

tinians   really   had   among   them    a    book  with 
the  title  supposed.     But,  though   the   account 
of  Irenseus,   so  far  as  it   relates   to  the  exist- 
ence   of   the    book,    may    be    correct,    there   is 
reason  for  doubting   it   altogether.     If  he   has 
fallen  into  a  mistake,  it  is  one  that  may  easily 
be  explained.     The  Valentinians,  we  may  sup- 
pose, professed  that  they  alone  had  "  the  true 
Gospel,"    meaning    that    they   alone   held    the 
true    doctrines   of    the    Gospel  ;    and   some   of 
their  opponents   misunderstood   them  as  mean- 
ing that  they  possessed  a  book  with  that  title. 
Had  they  really,   as   Irenaeus  says,   boasted  of 
possessing   such  a  gospel,    it   must   have    been 
an  important    book   in  reference  to   the  expo- 
sition of  their  doctrines.     But,  as  I  have  said, 
it  is  nowhere  referred  to  by  Irenaeus  himself, 
except  in  the  passage  just  quoted.     It  is  men- 
tioned   by    no    subsequent   writer    except    the 
Author    of    the    Addition    to    Tertullian,    who 
probably  took  his   notice   of  it   from    Irenaeus. 
Tertullian    himself,    who   was   well   acquainted 
with   the  works  of  Irenaeus,   affords  proof,   by 
his  silence  concerning  it  in  his  writings  against 
the   Valentinians,    that   he    was    not   aware   of 
its  existence,  or  regarded  it  as  not  worth  no- 
tice.    It  follows,  therefore,  either  that  Irenaeus 
was  in  error  in  supposing  that  there  was  such 


GENUINENESS  OF  THE  GOSPELS.         231 

a  book,  or  that  he  was  in  error  in  supposing 
that  the  Valentinians,  generally,  attached  any 
importance  to  it. 

Iren^us  gives  one  other  title  (before  men- 
tioned), purporting  to  be  that  of  an  apocryphal 
gospel  which  he  supposed  to  be  in  existence, 
and  to  be  called  "  The  Gospel  of  Judas,"  that 
is,  of  Judas  Iscariot.  He  represents  it  as  hav- 
ing been  used  by  the  Cainites.  According  to 
him,  these  heretics  were  distinguished  by  their 
abominable  immorality,  by  their  degrading  the 
character  of  the  Creator,  and  by  their  celebrat- 
ing such  personages  in  the  Old  Testament  as 
Cain,  Esau,  Korah,  and  the  Sodomites.  They 
regarded  them  as  allied  to  themselves  by  the 
possession  of  the  same  spiritual  nature,  and  as 
having  been,  on  account  of  this  nature,  per- 
secuted by  the  Creator.  They  apparently  con- 
sidered Cain  as  the  head  of  the  spiritual  among 
men.  He  was  from  "  the  higher  power "  (ct 
superiore  principalitate).  The  truth,  on  these 
subjects,  they  said,  was  known  to  Judas  alone  ; 
and  in  consequence  of  this  knowledge,  "  he 
performed  the  mystery  of  delivering  up  his 
master  ;  and  thus  through  Judas  all  things 
earthly  and  heavenly  [all  the  works  of  the 
Creator]  were  dissolved.     And   they  produce," 


232  EVIDENCES  OF  THE 

adds  Irenaeus,  "  a  fabrication  to  this  effect, 
calling  it  '  The  Gospel  of  Judas.'  "  *  The  ac- 
count of  Irenaeus  is  repeated  by  Epiphanius 
and  Theodoret. 

If  there  were  such  a  book  as  Irenaeus  names, 
there  is  no  ground  for  believing  it  to  have 
been  a  fabricated  history  of  Christ's  ministry. 
But  it  is  highly  improbable  that  any  sect  or 
any  book  existed,  such  as  Irenaeus  describes. 
It  is  a  moral  absurdity  to  suppose  that  there 
vs^as  a  Christian  sect  which  held  such  doc- 
trines, and  were  guilty  of  such  vices,  as  he 
imputes  to  the  Cainites ;  —  that  there  were 
Christians  avowing  Cain  to  be  their  spiritual 
head,  claiming  alliance  with  the  Sodomites, 
and  taking  Judas  for  their  religious  teacher. 
Nor  would  there  be  much  less  absurdity  in 
imagining  that  any  pseudo-Christian  Gnostics 
exposed  themselves  in  this  barefaced  manner 
to  infamy  and  detestation  ;  that  they  claimed 
to  be  on  a  level  with  the  worst  characters 
in  the  Old  and  New  Testaments,  and  avowed 
doctrines  at  once  so  monstrous,  and  so  inti- 
mately connected  with  Judaism  and  Christian- 
ity. Without  supposing  the  existence  of  any 
such  sect,  it  is  not  difficult  to  explain  the  origin 

*  Cont.  Haeres.  Lib.  I.  c.  31.  pp.  112,  113. 


GENUINENESS  OF  THE  GOSPELS.         233 

of  the  stories  concerning  it,  in  connection  with 
the  origin  of  the  name.     We  have  good  reason 
to   think    that    the    name    "  Nicolaitans "   was 
derived    from    passages    in    the    New    Testa- 
ment;  and   especially  from   two  in   the    Apoc- 
alypse, in  which    it   is    applied  to  those  who, 
having  professed  themselves  Christians,  indulged 
in   licentiousness.*      That  of    "  Cainites,"   we 
may  suppose,  was  derived  from  a  passage  (for- 
merly quoted)  in  the  Epistle  of  Jude,  in  which 
certain  individuals  are  thus  spoken  of:  —  "Woe 
for   them!    for  they  have  walked  in    the  way 
of  Cain,  and  given  themselves  up  to  deceive, 
like  Balaam,  for  pay,   and   brought  destruction 
on  themselves  through  rebellion,  like  Korah."  f 
The  name  was  applied  to  those  otherwise  called 
Nicolaitans,  as  we  are  informed  by  Tertullian 
in  the  only  passage  in  which  he  mentions  it.J 
But  there   was   probably  still  another  occasion 
of  its   use.      The   theosophic   Gnostics  consid- 
ered Seth  as  the   representative   and   head   of 
the  spiritual  among  men,  and,  in  consequence, 
appear  to  have  sometimes  given  themselves  the 

*  See  Vol.  II.  pp.  168,  169. 

t  Jude,  ver.  ll.  —  See  Vol.  II.  pp.  167,  168. 

t  Tertullian,  after  referring  to  the  Nicolaitans  mentioned  in  the 
Apocalypse,  says :  —  "  Sunt  et  nunc  alii  Nicolaita  ;  Caiana  haere- 
sis  dicitur."     De  Prescript.  Heretic,  c.  33.  p.  214. 

VOL.  III.  30 


234  EVIDENCES  OF  THE 

name  of  Sethians.*  But  the  assumption  of 
this  name  might  naturally  provoke  the  more 
angry  among  their  opponents  to  apply  the  op- 
posite name  of  Cainites  to  those  Gnostics,  at 
least,  whom  they  regarded  as  guilty  of  gross 
vices.  The  name  being  given,  a  system  of 
doctrines  corresponding  to  it  would  be  easily 
fabricated,  out  of  exaggerations,  misconcep- 
tions, and  false  reports ;  and  one  may  find 
little  difficulty  in  supposing  that  the  assertion, 
that  those  to  whom  it  was  applied  were  trai- 
tors to  Christ,  teaching  not  his  gospel,  but 
the  gospel  of  Judas  Iscariot,  gave  occasion  to 
the  notion  that  they  had  a  book  with  that  title. 
If  there  were  no  sect  holding  the  doctrines 
imputed  to  the  Cainites,  there  was  no  gos- 
pel in  existence  conformed  to  those  doctrines. 
Should  it,  however,  still  be  thought  that  there 
may  have  been  such  a  book,  it  is  to  be  rec- 
ollected that  it  must  have  been  a  book  not 
used  by  Christians,  of  no  authority,  and,  as 
appears  from  the  little  attention  it  received, 
of  no  notoriety. 

Sdch  is  all  the  information  concerning  Gnos- 
tic or  apocryphal  gospels  afforded  by  the  two 

*  See  Vol.  II.  p.  32,  note  ;  pp.  230,  231. 


GENUINENESS  OF  THE  GOSPELS.  235 

principal  writers  against  the  Gnostics.  Ter- 
tullian,  throughout  his  works,  mentions  no  such 
gospel.  Irenaeus  gives  two  titles  supposed  bj 
him  to  belong  to  such  books.  But  it  is  very 
improbable  that  there  was  any  such  book  as 
"  The  Gospel  of  Judas."  The  existence  of 
"  The  True  Gospel,"  also,  is  doubtful.  But 
if  there  were  a  book  bearing  that  title,  we 
cannot  reasonably  suppose  it  to  have  been  a 
history  of  Christ's  ministry  at  variance  with  the 
four  Gospels. 

The  Valentinians  and  Marcionites  were  the 
two  principal  sects  of  the  Gnostics,  and  proba- 
bly comprehended  far  the  greater  part  of  their 
number.  Excepting  the  story  of  Irenaeus  con- 
cerning "  The  True  Gospel,"  there  is  no  charge 
against  either  sect,  that  they  appealed  to  apoc- 
ryphal gospels  ;  unless  that  name  be  given  to 
Marcion's  defective  copy  of  Luke's  Gospel. 
Next  to  those  two  sects  the  Basilidians  appear, 
for  some  reason  or  other,  to  have  been  regarded 
as  the  most  important ;  and  we  will  now  attend 
to  what  is  said  of  their  use  of  an  apocryphal 
gospel. 

Of  any  work  called  a  "gospel,"  different 
from  the  four  Gospels,  which  was  in  use  among 


236  EVIDENCES  OF  THE 

the  Basilidians,  there  is  no  mention  in  Irenaeus 
or  in  Clement  of  Alexandria,  who  are  the  prin- 
cipal sources  of  all  the  information  concerning 
them  to  which  any  credit  can  be  attached. 
Nor  is  such  a  work  mentioned  by  Epiphanius, 
who  in  general  brought  together  all  that  he 
could  find,  true  or  false,  to  the  prejudice  of 
the  heretics  ;  nor  by  Eusebius,  among  the  apoc- 
ryphal writings  which  he  enumerates ;  nor  by 
Theodoret,  who  compiled  his  accounts  of  the 
heretics  from  many  earlier  authors.  Such  a 
book  is  first  named  by  the  Author  of  the  Hom- 
ilies on  Luke,  which  have  been  ascribed  to 
Origen.  That  writer  speaks  of  it  in  a  passage 
in  which  he  gives  the  titles,  real  or  supposed, 
of  various  apocryphal  gospels,  to  be  hereafter 
noticed.  He  is  commenting  on  the  words  with 
which  Luke  begins  his  Gospel,  —  "  Since  many 
have  undertaken  to  arrange  a  narrative  of  the 
events  accomplished  among  us."  He  regards 
the  term  "  undertaken "  as  perhaps  implying 
a  censure  on  the  works  referred  to  by  Luke. 
The  four  Evangelists,  he  says,  did  not  "  under- 
take "  ;  they  wrote  under  the  impulse  of  the 
Holy  Spirit.  But  others  (since  their  day) 
had  "  undertaken,"  and  among  them  "  Ba- 
silides,"  he  says,  "  had  the  boldness  to  write 


GENUINENESS  OF  THE  GOSPELS.         237 

a  '  Gospel  according  to  Basilides.'  "  *  The 
whole  passage,  with  this  notice  of  a  gospel 
ascribed  to  Basilides,  was  imitated  by  Am- 
brose t  and  Jerome  f  toward  the  end  of  the 
fourth  century. 

Such  is  the  evidence  that  a  gospel  was  writ- 
ten by  Basilides.  It  consists  in  the  assertion 
of  an  unknown  writer,  who  must  have  lived 
more  than  a  century  after  the  death  of  Basili- 
des, and  the  repetition  of  this  assertion  by  two 
other  writers  more  than  two  centuries  after 
that  event.  This  evidence  is  of  no  weio-ht 
to  counterbalance  the  great  improbability  that 
such  a  gospel  should  not  have  been  taken  no- 
tice of  by  the  earlier  opponents  of  Basilides, 
nor  by  any  writer  of  a  later  age  who  has  pro- 
fessed to  give  an  account  of  his  doctrines  and 
sect.  The  fathers  were  very  ready  to  charge 
the  heretics  with  using  books  of  no  authority, 
apocryphal  books.  Why  should  we  not  have 
heard  as  much  of  a  gospel  written  by  Basili- 
des, as  of  the  defective  Gospel  of  Luke  used 
by  the  Marcionites  ? 

The    notion   that   Basihdes   wrote   a   gospel 


*  Homil.  T.  in  Lucam.     Origen.  0pp.  III.  933. 

t  Expositio  Evang.  Lucae,  Lib.  I.  0pp.  I.  1265.  Ed.  Benedict. 

t  Comment,  in  Matth.  Proera.  0pp.  Tom.  IV.  P.  I.  p.  2. 


238  EVIDENCES  OF  THE 

probably  arose  from  the  fact,  that  he  wrote  a 
commentary  on  the  Gospels.  In  this  he  of 
course  explained  his  views  of  Christianity ;  and 
these  views,  or  the  book  in  which  they  were 
contained,  might  be  called  his  gospel.  Agrippa 
Castor,  who,  according  to  Eusebius,  was  a 
contemporary  of  Basilides,  and  whose  "  most 
able  confutation "  Eusebius  says  was  extant 
in  his  time,  apparently  knew  nothing  of  any 
"  Gospel  of  Basilides,"  but  did  mention  that 
he  "  wrote  twenty-four  books  on  the  Gospel," 
meaning  by  that  term  the  four  Gospels.*     From 

*  ^ri(T\v  fAyptTrTras]  aiirbv  els  fieu  to  'EiiayyeXiov  reatrapa  npos 
Toif  fiKoari  a-vvrd^ai  j3t/3Xta.  Eusebii  Hist.  Eccles.  Lib.  TV.  c.  7. 
—  "It  is  uncertain,"  says  Fabricius  (I.  343*,  note),  "whether 
Basilides  wrote  these  twenty-four  volumes  of  Commentaries  on 
the  Gospel  of  Matthew,  or  on  some  other  of  the  four  canonical 
Gospels,  or  on  the  whole  Gospel-history,  or  on  the  Gospel  accord- 
ing to  the  Egyptians,  or,  as  Valesius  suspects,  on  his  own  gos- 
pel," Similar  doubts  have  been  expressed  by  other  learned  men. 
They  appear  to  have  arisen,  in  part,  from  the  erroneous  prepos- 
session, that  the  Gnostics  commonly  used  apocryphal  gospels  in 
preference  to  the  catholic  Gospels,  and  from  inattention  to  a  very 
common  use  of  the  word  "  gospel  "  [eiiayyeXiov)  in  ancient  times, 
in  a  sense  with  which  we  are  no  longer  familiar.  The  four  Gos- 
pels, considered  collectively,  were  called  "  the  Gospel."  Thus 
Origen  says  (Comment,  in  Joan.  0pp.  IV.  98),  —  "The  Gospel, 
though  written  by  several,  is  one  in  effect."  The  title  "  Gos- 
pel," in  the  singular,  was  the  appropriate  title  of  a  book  contain- 
ing the  four  Gospels.  There  is,  in  fact,  no  ground  for  doubt  re- 
specting the  meaning  of  the  words  quoted.  By  to  EvayyeXiov, 
the  article  having  no  reference  to  any  book  before  mentioned,  and 


GENUINENESS  OF  THE  GOSPELS.  239 

the  twenty-third  book  of  this  Commentary 
Clement  of  Alexandria  quotes  several  passa- 
ges in  connection.*  The  Commentary  of  Ba- 
silides  is  one  among  the  decisive  proofs  of  the 
respect  in  which  the  Gospels  were  held  by 
the  theosophic  Gnostics. 

If  the  account  of  the  Author  of  the  Hom- 
ilies on  Luke  were  founded  on  the  existence 
of  any  work,  this  Commentary,  in  all  prob- 
ability, was  the  work,  which,  having  heard 
of  it  and  not  having  seen  it,  he  called  "  The 
Gospel  of  Basilides."  But  were  there  anoth- 
er book  bearing  that  title,  it  could  not  have 
been  a  history  of  Christ's  ministry  at  variance 
with  our  present  Gospels.  Of  such  a  book  we 
should  have  had  far  other  information  than  an 
incidental  mention  of  its  title  first  made  more 
than  a  century  after  the  death  of  its  author. 

In  what  precedes  we  have  seen  the  whole 
amount  of  information  concerning  apocryphal 
gospels  the  use  of  which  is  attributed  to  either 
of  the  three  principal  Gnostic  sects.     This  in- 

the  term  being  used  without  any  explanatory  epithet,  notliing 
can  here  be  meant  but  the  four  Gospels,  or,  what  amounts  to 
the  same  thing,  the  Gospel-history  as  contained  in  the  four 
Gospels. 

*  Stromat.  IV.  §  12.  pp.  599,  600. 


240  EVIDENCES  OF  THE 

formation  consists  of  two  stories,  one  concern- 
ing 5.'\The  True  Gospel,"  and  the  other  con- 
cerning "  The  Gospel  of  Basilides."  It  is 
doubtful,  as  we  have  seen,  whether  any  books 
existed  bearing  those  titles  ;  but  did  such  books 
exist,  they  must  have  been  works  of  no  celeb- 
rity, not  current  among  the  Gnostics,  and  not 
regarded  by  them  as  of  authority.  No  writer 
produces  an  example  of  their  drawing  an  argu- 
ment from  either  of  them,  or  of  their  appealing 
to  them  for  any  purpose  whatever. 

We  have  seen,  likewise,  that,  of  the  two 
principal  -^writers  against  the  Gnostics,  Tertul- 
lian  makes  no  mention  of  apocryphal  gospels, 
and  we  have  considered  what  is  the  amount  of 
evidence  which  Irenseus  affords  of  their  exist- 
ence and  use. 

Next  to  Irenseus  and  Tertullian,  their  con- 
temporary, Clement  of  Alexandria,  is  our  most 
important  authority  concerning  the  Gnostics. 
He  was  a  man  of  extensive  information,  a  wide 
reader,  quoting  from  a  great  variety  of  authors, 
and  acquainted  with  the  writings  of  the  princi- 
pal theosophic  Gnostics,  whose  words  he  often 
cites.  From  him,  therefore,  if  from  any  one, 
we  should  expect  authentic  notices  of  apocry- 
phal   gospels ;    and,    accordingly,   we   do    find 


GENUINENESS  OF  THE  GOSPELS.         241 

mention  of  one  such  book,  which,  there  is  no 
doubt,  really  existed.  It  was  called  "  The  Gos- 
pel according  to  the  Egyptians." 

This  book  has,  in  modern  times,  been  partic- 
ularly remarked.  It  has  been  thought  by  many 
to  have  been  a  history  of  Christ's  ministry,  used 
by  the  Gnostics ;  and  some  have  even  imagined 
that  it  was  one  of  those  gospels  referred  to  by 
Luke  in  the  introduction  to  his  own.*  The 
facts  concerning  it  are  these. 

Clement,  in  reasoning  against  those  heretics 
who  denied  the  lawfulness  of  marriage,  gives 
the  following  passage,  as  adduced  by  them  in 
support  of  their  doctrine.  "  When  Salome 
asked  the  Lord,  '  How  long  death  should  have 
power,'  he  replied,  '  As  long  as  you  women  bear 
children.'"!  This,  Clement  asserts,  is  only  a 
declaration  that  death  is  the  natural  conse- 
quence of  birth.  Considering  the  passage, 
therefore,  as  having  no  force  to  prove  the  point 
for  which  it  was  adduced,  namely,  our  Lord's 
disapproval  of  marriage,  he  does  not  remark 
upon  the  question  of  its  authenticity,  nor  men- 
tion in  this  place  from  what  book  it  was  taken. 


*  The  opinions  of  modern  authors  respecting  it  are  collected  by 
Jones,  I.  201,  seqq. 

•j-  Stromal.  III.  §  6.  p.  532. 
VOL.  III.  31 


242  EVIDENCES  OF  THE 

But  a  few  pages  after  he  says: — "But  those  who, 
through  their  specious  continence,  oppose  them- 
selves to  the  creation  of  God,  cite  what  was  ut- 
tered to  Salome,  of  which  I  have  before  taken 
notice.  The  words  are  found,  as  I  suppose,  in 
the  Gospel  according  to  the  Egyptians.  For 
they  affirm  that  our  Saviour  himself  said,  'I 
have  come  to  destroy  the  works  of  the  female ' ; 
—  by  'the  female'  meaning  lust,  by  'the  works' 
generation  and  corruption."* 

Clement  explains  the  words  ascribed  to  Jesus 
in  a  different  sense  from  that  in  which  they 
were  understood  by  those  against  whom  he 
wrote.  It  is  unnecessary  to  give  his  remarks. 
Toward  the  conclusion  of  them  he  asks :  — 

"But  do  not  those  who  prefer  any  thing  to 
walking  by  that  Gospel  rule  which  is  according 
to  the  truth  also  allege  what  follows  of  the  con- 
versation with  Salome  ?  For,  upon  her  saying, 
'  I  have  done  well  in  not  bearing  children,'  as  if 
there  were  something  improper  in  it,  the  Lord 
replied,  'Eat  of  every  herb,  but  of  that  which  is 
bitter  eat  not ' ;  by  which  words  he  signifies 
that  celibacy  or  marriage  is  a  matter  within  our 
own  choice,  neither  being  enforced  by  any  pro- 
hibition of  the  other."  t 

*  Stromat.  III.  ^  9.  pp.  539,  540.  f  Ibid.  p.  641. 


GENUINENESS  OF  THE  GOSPELS.  243 

I  proceed  to  the  last  passage  which  he  quotes. 
He  is  here  arguing  particularly  against  a  writer 
named  Julius  Cassian. 

"Cassian  [in  defending  his  doctrine  respect- 
ing celibacy]  says,  Upon  Salome's  asking  when 
those  things  should  be  known  concerning  which 
she  inquired,  the  Lord  answered,  'When  ye 
shall  tread  under  foot  the  garment  of  your 
shame,  and  when  the  two  become  one,  and  the 
male  with  the  female  neither  male  nor  fe- 
male.'"* 

By  the  garments  of  shame,  that  is,  the  gar- 
ments of  skin,  which,  according  to  the  story  in 
Genesis,  God  made  for  Adam  and  Eve,  Cassian, 
in  common  with  other  ancient  allegorists,  under- 
stood human  bodies,  the  flesh,  the  seat  of  cor- 
ruption. The  body  was  the  garment  of  shame 
which  he  believed  was  to  be  trodden  under 
foot.f 

Part  of  the  words  ascribed  to  Christ  in  the 
passage  last  quoted  are  likewise  given  as  a 
"  saying  of  the  Lord,"  without  reference  to  any 
book,  in   what   has   been   called   the    "Second 


*  Stromat.  III.  ^  13.  p.  553. 

t  See   the  context  of  the  passage  in  Clement,  p.  554,  and 
Beausobre,  Histoire  du  Manich6isme,  Tom.  II.  pp.  135,  136. 


244  EVIDENCES  OF  THE 

Epistle  of  Clement,"  of  Rome,  a  spurious  work, 
which  I  have  formerly  mentioned.* 

The  words  in  the  passage  first  quoted  f  occur 
in  the  Doctrina  Orientalis,t  as  follows:  — "When 
the  Saviour  said  to  Salome,  '  Death  shall  con- 
tinue as  long  as  women  bear  children,'  he  did 
not  mean  to  blame  the  generation  of  children." 
The  Gnostic  writer,  who  here  quotes  the  words, 
rejected,  like  Clement  of  Alexandria,  the  use 
made  of  them  by  the  ascetics.  He  supposed 
them  to  have  a  mystical  meaning,  referring  to 
Achamoth. 

The  title  of  "The  Gospel  according  to  the 
Egyptians"  is  mentioned  by  the  Author  of  the 
Homilies  on  Luke  in  the  passage  before  referred 
to,  and  after  him  by  three  writers  who  have 
imitated  that  passage,  namely,  Jerome,  Titus 
Bostrensis,  and  Theophylact.^" 

Epiphanius,  in  his  article  on  the  Sabellians, 
after  saying  that  they  make  use  of  all  the 
writings  both  of  the  Old  and  of  the  New  Tes- 
tament, selecting  passages  to  their  purpose, 
adds,  —  "But  their  whole  error,  and  the  main 


*  See  Vol.  I.  pp.  ccxliii,  ccxliv.  —  The  words  are  found  at  the 
end  of  the  fragment  of  this  Epistle  which  remains, 
t  See  before,  p.  241.  J  §  67.  p.  985. 

^  Fabricius,  I.  335*,  note. 


GENUINENESS  OF  THE  GOSPELS.         245 

support  of  their  error,  they  derive  from  certain 
apocryphal  books,  particularly  that  called  'The 
Egyptian  Gospel,'  a  name  which  some  have 
given  it.  For  in  that  there  are  many  things  to 
their  purpose,  of  an  obscure,  mystical  character, 
which  are  ascribed  to  the  Saviour;  as  if  he 
himself  had  made  known  to  his  disciples  that 
the  Father,  the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Spirit  were 
the  same  person."* 

An  improbable  story,  resting  solely  on  the 
testimony  of  Epiphanius,  is  not  entitled  to 
credit;  and  this  story  about  the  Sabellians  is 
altogether  improbable.  Epiphanius  does  not 
seem  to  have  known  even  the  proper  title  of 
the  book  which  he  charges  them  with  using. 
He  says  that  it  was  called  "The  Egyptian 
Gospel " ;  the  other  writers  who  mention  it  give 
it  the  title  of  "The  Gospel  according  to  the 
Egyptians." 

I  HAVE  quoted  all  the  fragments,  and,  I 
believe,  mentioned  all  the  notices  of  this  apoc- 
ryphal gospel  which  have  come  down  to  us. 
One  unaccustomed  to  such  studies  might  be 
surprised  to  see  the  hypotheses  and  assertions 
that  have  been  founded  upon  them  in  modern 

*  Haeres.  LXII.  §  2.  0pp.  I,  513,  514. 


246  EVIDENCES    OF  THE 

times.  What  in  fact  appears  is,  that  it  was  an 
anonymous  book,  extant  in  the  second  century, 
and  probably  written  in  Egypt,  in  the  dark  and 
mystical  style  that  prevailed  in  that  country. 
In  judging  of  its  notoriety  and  importance,  we 
must  compare  the  few  writers  who  recognize 
its  existence  with  the  far  greater  number  to 
whom  it  was  unknown,  or  who  were  not  led  by 
any  circumstance  to  mention  it.  It  was  a  book 
of  which  we  should  have  been  ignorant,  but  for 
a  few  incidental  notices  afforded  by  writers, 
none  of  whom  give  evidence  of  having  seen  it.* 
Neither  Clement,  nor  any  other  writer,  speaks 
of  it  as  a  Gnostic  gospel.  It  does  not  appear 
that  it  had  any  particular  credit  or  currency 
among  the  generality  of  the  Gnostics.  Some 
ascetics  of  their  number,  in  maintaining  the 
obligation  of  celibacy,  argued  from  a  passage 
found  in  it,  as  they  did  undoubtedly  from  pas- 


*  That  it  had  not  been  seen  by  Clement  of  Alexandria,  from 
whom  our  principal  information  concerning  it  is  derived,  appears 
from  his  turns  of  expression  in  remarking  on  the  quotations  from 
it :  —  "  The  words  are  found,  as  I  suppose  (of/iai),  in  the  Gospel 
according  to  the  Egyptians  "  ;  —  "  Theij  affirm,  that  the  Saviour 
himself  said ";  — and  where,  in  appealing  to  a  passage  in  the 
conversation  with  Salome,  as  justifying  his  own  views,  he  refers 
to  it  as  quoted  by  those  whom  he  is  opposing,  and  not  as  other- 
wise known  to  him,  thus,  "  Do  they  not  also  allege  what  follows  ?  " 
See  Jones,  I.  206. 


GENUINENESS  OF  THE  GOSPELS.         247 

sages  found  in  the  four  Gospels ;  but  other 
Gnostics,  as  we  have  seen  from  the  Doctrina 
Orientalis,  rejected  their  interpretation.  The 
Gnostics  did  not  appeal  to  it  in  support  of  their 
more  distinguishing  and  fundamental  doctrines; 
for,  had  they  done  so,  we  should  have  been  fully 
informed  of  the  fact. 

As  this  is  the  first  apocryphal  gospel  the 
former  existence  of  which  we  have  clearly  as- 
certained, the  question  arises,  Whether  it  were 
or  were  not  a  history  of  Christ's  ministry. 
The  only  argument  of  any  weight  for  believing 
it  to  have  been  so  is,  that  it  contained  a  narra- 
tive of  a  pretended  conversation  of  Christ  with 
Salome.  But  if  it  were  not  an  historical,  but 
a  doctrinal  book,  there  is  no  difficulty  in  sup- 
posing that  the  writer  might  find  occasion  to  in- 
sert in  it  a  traditional  account  of  a  discourse 
of  Christ.  A  few  such  traditional  accounts  of 
sayings  of  our  Lord  are  found  in  other  writers 
of  the  first  three  centuries.*  As  regards  the 
words  ascribed  to  him  in  the  conversation  with 
Salome,  it  is  evident  that  the  tradition  concern- 
ing them  was  false.  Our  Saviour  never  ex- 
pressed himself  as  he  is  reported  to  have  done 


*  See  Vol.  I.  pp.  227-229.  —Fabricius,  I.  321*,  seqq.     Jones, 
I.  405,  seqq. 


248  EVIDENCES  OF  THE 

in  the  passages  that  have  been  quoted.  The 
writer  had  an  erroneous  conception  of  his  char- 
acter. But  if  the  book  had  been  an  historical 
gospel,  this  conception  would  have  pervaded  it, 
and  would  have  been  prominent  in  many  other 
particular  passages.  A  history  of  Christ's  min- 
istry, so  foreign  in  its  character  from  the  Gos- 
pels as  this  must  have  been,  could  not  have  ex- 
isted in  the  last  half  of  the  second  century,  — 
whether  it  were  a  composition  of  an  early  age, 
or  a  fiction  of  later  times,  —  without  having 
been  an  object  of  far  greater  attention  than 
what  this  book  received.  Especially,  had  it 
been  brought  forward  by  any  sect  in  opposition 
to  the  Gospels,  it  would  have  been  a  primary 
subject  of  discussion.  But  we  have  seen  that 
the  book  in  question  was  little  regarded  or 
known.  It  could  not,  therefore,  have  been  a 
history  of  Christ's  ministry. 

This  is  the  only  apocryphal  gospel,  unless  the 
Gospel  according  to  the  Hebrews  be  regarded 
as  apocryphal,  the  title  of  which  is  mentioned 
by  Clement.  According  to  his  present  text,  he 
quotes  one  other  without  giving  its  title.  But 
there  are  good  reasons  for  believing  that  his 
text,  as  it  stands,  is  corrupt,  and  that  there  was 
originally  no  mention  in  it  of  a  gospel.* 

*  Clement  (Stroinat.  V.  §  10.  p.  684)  is  treating  of  the  hidden 


GENUINENESS  OF  THE  GOSPELS.         249 

If  this  be  so,  then,  with  the  exception  just 
mentioned  of  the  Gospel  according  to  the  He- 
brews, supposing  that  this  exception  should  be 


wisdom  on  which  he  so  much  insists.  He  professes  to  quote  a 
passage  from  a  prophet,  apparently  intending  Isaiah,  though  noth- 
ing very  like  it  is  found  in  his  writings,  or  elsewhere  in  the  Old 
Testament.  It  is  this :  —  "  Who  shall  understand  the  parable  of  the 
Lord  [Jehovah],  but  the  wise  and  understanding  and  he  who  loves 
his  Lord  1 "  Clement  then,  as  his  text  now  stands,  goes  on  thus : 
—  "  For  it  is  in  the  power  of  few  to  understand  these  things.  For 
the  Lord,  though  not  unwilling  to  communicate,  the  prophet  says 
[or,  the  Scripture  says] ,  declared  in  a  certain  gospel,  '  My  secret 
is  for  me  and  the  sons  of  my  house.'  "  —  "  Oi  yap  (^BovSav,  cfyrjal, 
TraprjjyeCkev  6  Kvpios  eV  rivi  fiay-yeXico,"  k.  t.  X.  I  suppose  the 
words  "  in  a  certain  gospel  "  to  be  an  interpolation.  The  passage 
quoted  corresponds  to  what  is  found  in  some  copies  of  the  Septua- 
gint  at  Isaiah  xxiv.  16.  (See  the  note  on  the  passage  in  Potter's 
edition  of  Clement,  where  in  the  first  line  "  cap.  2  "  is  a  misprint 
for  "  cap.  24.")  The  verb  (^ijcri,  says,  must  have  for  its  subject 
either  the  prophet  mentioned  immediately  before,  or  the  Scripture 
(the  ellipsis  supposed  in  the  last  case  being  not  uncommon).  But 
Clement  cannot  be  imagined  to  have  made  so  incongruous  an  as- 
sertion as  that  "  The  prophet  says,"  — or,  "  The  Scripture  says," 
— "  that  the  Lord  [Christ]  declared  in  a  certain  gospel."  That 
he  considered  himself  as  borrowing  the  words,  "  My  secret  is  for 
me  and  my  children,"  not  from  a  certain  gospel,  but  from  Isaiah, 
appears  also  from  the  circumstance,  that,  a  few  lines  after  them, 
he  gives  a  quotation  from  Isaiah,  introducing  it  with  the  words, 
"The  prophet  says  again"  {jJaXiu  6  Trpocf>rirr]s).  —  I  suppose, 
therefore,  that  the  words  "  in  a  certain  gospel  "  were  originally  a 
marginal  gloss  made  by  a  transcriber,  who  attributed  to  Christ  the 
declaration  quoted  by  Clement,  and  who,  knowing  that  it  was  not 
found  in  the  four  Gospels,  thought  it  must  be  in  some  gospel  or 
other.  — See  Jones,  I.  442,  seqq. 
VOL.  III.  32 


250  EVIDENCES  OF  THE 

made,  the  Gospel  according  to  the  Egyptians 
is  the  only  apocryphal  book,  bearing  the  title  of 
a  gospel,  that  is  mentioned  by  any  writer  dur- 
ing the  three  centuries  succeeding  our  Lord's 
death,  from  which  a  single  quotation  is  profess- 
edly given,  or  of  which  it  is  probable  that  a  sin- 
gle fragment  remains. 

As  I  have  said,  the  title  of  no  other  apocry- 
phal gospel,  used  by  any  Gentile  Christians,  is 
mentioned  by  Clement.  But  it  is  desirable  to 
give  the  fullest  information  on  the  subject  which 
we  are  examining;  for,  as  I  have  before  re- 
marked, it  is  a  subject  that  requires  elucidation 
rather  than  argument.  I  will  therefore  advert 
to  another  work,  which  he  quotes  under  the 
name  of  "  The  Traditions,"  and  which  has  been 
imagined  to  be  the  same  with  an  apocryphal 
gospel  called  "  The  Gospel  according  to  Matthi- 
as." He  speaks  of  the  Traditions  in  the  follow- 
ing passages :  — 

"To  attain  wisdom  we  must  begin  with  won- 
dering at  things,  as  Plato  says  in  his  Theaetetus  ; 
and  Matthias,  in  the  Traditions,  thus  concludes : 
—  '  Wonder  at  present  things ' ;  making  this 
the  first  step  of  our  progress  in  knowledge."  * 

*  Stromal.  11.  §  9.  pp.  452,  453. 


GENUINENESS  OF  THE  GOSPELS.         251 

In  arguing  against  the  licentiousness  of  the 
Carpocratians,  he  adduces  another  passage, 
thus  :  — 

"  It  is  said,*  likewise,  that  Matthias  also 
thus  taught :  —  '  We  must  contend  against  the 
flesh  and  humble  it,  granting  it  no  intemper- 
ate pleasure,  but  promote  the  growth  of  the 
soul  through  faith  and  knowledge.'  "  f 

He  again  quotes  a  passage  ascribed  to  Mat- 
thias, for  the  purpose,  as  before,  of  confirming 
his  own  doctrine :  —  "It  is  said  in  the  Tradi- 
tions, that  Matthias,  the  Apostle,  often  re- 
peated, '  that,  if  the  neighbour  of  one  of  the 
elect  sin,  he  himself  has  sinned ;  for,  if  he 
had   conducted   himself  as    Reason    (the    Log- 


*  Ae'yovo-i  yap,  that  is,  "  They  say,''''  "  It  is  said."  Different 
writers  who  have  spoken  of  "  The  Traditions  "  (as  Fabricius,  II. 
785,  Grabe,  Spicilegium,  II.  118,  Jones,  I.  255,  and  Lardner, 
Works,  I.  410,  note  f.)  have  fallen  into  the  error  of  supposing 
the  Carpocratians  or  Nicola'itans,  against  whom  Clement  is  writ- 
ing, to  be  the  subject  of  the  verb,  and  consequently  of  making 
Clement  represent  them  as  quoting  a  passage  directly  opposed  to 
the  principles  he  ascribes  to  them.  He  himself  quotes  the  pas- 
sage against  them.  The  next  quotation  given  above  from  the 
Traditions  is  introduced  by  him  in  like  manner  with  Atyova-i  be. — 
The  error  has  partly  arisen  from  the  fact,  that  some  dissolute 
sectaries  did,  as  Clement  mentions,  pervert  the  ascetic  maxim, 
"  Abuse  the  body,"  perhaps  quoting  it  ironically.  See  Vol.  II. 
pp.  131,  169. 

t  Stromat.  III.  §  4.  p.  523. 


252  EVIDENCES   OF  THE 

os)  dictates,  his  neighbour  would  have  so  rev- 
erenced his  course  of  life  as  not  to  sin.' "  * 
The  language  is  too  unlimited,  but  the  mo- 
rality is  good. 

In  what  is  supposed  to  be  a  Latin  transla- 
tion of  a  portion  of  a  lost  work  of  Clement, 
called  "  Hypotjposes "  or  Institutions,  there 
is  another  strange  passage  quoted  from  the 
Traditions,  as  agreeing  with  the  conceptions 
of  the  writer.  Clement,  if  he  be  the  writer, 
is  commenting  on  the  first  words  of  the  First 
Epistle  of  John,  which  —  to  render  as  he  un- 
derstood them  —  are  these  :  —  "  What  was 
from  the  beginning,  what  we  have  seen  with 
our  eyes,  what  we  have  heard,  and  our  hands 
have  touched  concerning  the  Logos  of  life." 
He  maintains  (conformably  to  what  Photius 
says  t  was  a  heresy  affirmed  by  Clement  in 
the  work  just  mentioned),  that  the  Logos  who 
was  from  the  beginning  is  to  be  distinguished 
from  the  Logos  who  became  incarnate.  The 
latter  consisted  of  those  powers  of  the  for- 
mer which  proceeded  from  him  as  "  a  ray  from 
the  sun  "  ;  and  "  this  ray,  coming  in  the  flesh, 
became   an  object  of  touch  to   the   disciples." 


*  Stromal.  VII.  §  13.  p.  882. 

t  Photii  Bibliotheca,  col.  285.  Ed-  Schotti. 


GENUINENESS  OF  THE  GOSPELS.         253 

"  Thus,"  he  says,  "  it  is  related  in  the  Tra- 
ditions, that  '  John,  touching  his  external  body, 
plunged  his  hand  in,  the  hardness  of  the  flesh 
offering  no  resistance  to  it,  but  giving  way  to 
the  hand  of  the  disciple.'  Hence  it  is  that 
John  affirms,  <  Our  hands  have  touched  con- 
cerning the  Logos  of  life  ' ;  *  that  which  came 
in  the  flesh  being  made  an  object  of  touch."  f  — 
As  I  have  formerly  remarked, f  such  traditions 
strikingly  illustrate  what  would  have  been  the 
state  of  the  history  of  Jesus  in  the  latter  half 
of  the  second  century,  had  it  not  been  for  the 
early  existence  and  authoritative  character  of 
the  Gospels. 

There  is  no  reason  to  suppose  that  the  book 
called  "  The  Traditions "  was  in  favor  with 
any  Gnostics.  Clement  does  not  represent  it 
as  having  been  cited  by  any  heretical  writer. 
On  the  contrary,  he  himself  quotes  it  as  con- 
firming his  own  opinions.  He  does  not  entitle 
it  "  The  Traditions  of  Matthias,"  as  it  has 
been  called  in  modern  times,  but  simply  "  The 
Traditions."  The  former  title  has  been  given 
it,   because,   in   the    three    passages   quoted    by 


*  "  Propter  quod  et  infert,  Et  manus  nostrce  contrectaverunt  de 
verbo  vita.'''' 

f  Apud  Clementis  Fragmenta.     0pp.  p.  1009. 
X  See  before,  pp.  180,  181. 


254  EVIDENCES  OF  THE 

Clement  in  his  Stromata,  the  name  of  Mat- 
thias occurs ;  and  this  title  having  been  given 
it,  the  book  has  been  fancied  by  some  to  be 
the  same  with  an  apocryphal  gospel  called 
"  The  Gospel  according  to  Matthias." 

Of  this  book  nothing  but  the  title  remains. 
It  is  first  mentioned  by  the  Author  of  the 
Homilies  on  Luke ;  after  him,  by  his  imitators, 
Ambrose  and  Jerome,  and  also  by  Eusebius. 
Possibly  the  notion  that  there  was  such  a  book 
may  have  arisen  from  the  fact  mentioned  by 
Clement,*  that  the  Gnostics  boasted  that  their 
opinions  were  favored  by  Matthias,  qr,  in  other 
words,  that  they  taught  the  Gospel  as  it  was 
understood  by  Matthias,  the  Gospel  according 
to  Matthias.  Had  they  possessed  a  book  with 
that  title  known  to  Clement,  it  seems  likely 
that  he  would  have  spoken  of  it,  when  thus 
takins:  notice  of  their  claim  to  the  counte- 
nance  of  Matthias.  Considering  the  tendency 
of  the  fathers  to  charge  the  heretics  with  using 
books  of  no  authority,  the  bare  titles  of  sup- 
posed apocryphal  and  heretical  works  given 
by  the  Author  of  the  Homilies  on  Luke,  and 
by  writers  after  the  end  of  the  third  century, 
deserve  little  consideration. 


*  See  before,  p.  200. 


GENUINENESS  OF  THE  GOSPELS.         255 

Before  the  time  of  Origen,  no  other  writer 
besides  Irenaeus  and  Clement  mentions  any 
apocryphal  gospel,  real  or  supposed,  except 
Serapion,  as  quoted  by  Eusebius.  Serapion, 
who  was  bishop  of  Antioch  about  the  close  of 
the  second  century,  wrote,  concerning  a  gos- 
pel called  "  The  Gospel  according  to  Peter," 
a  tract  of  which  Eusebius  gives  the  following 
account.* 

"  Another  tract  was  composed  by  Serapion 
concerning  the  Gospel  according  to  Peter,  so 
called,  the  object  of  which  was  to  confute  the 
errors  contained  in  it,  on  account  of  some  in 
the  church  at  Rhossus  who  had  been  led  by 
this  book  to  adopt  heterodox  opinions.  From 
this  it  may  be  worth  while  to  quote  a  few 
words  in  which  he  expresses  his  opinion  con- 
cerning it.  '  We,  brethren,'  he  writes,  '  ac- 
knowledge the  authority  both  of  Peter  and 
the  other  Apostles,  as  we  do  that  of  Christ ; 
but  we  reject,  with  good  reason,  the  writings 
which  falsely  bear  their  names,  well  knowing 
that  such  have  not  been  handed  down  to  us. 
I,  indeed,  when  I  was  with  you,  supposed  that 
you  were  all  going  on  in  a  right  faith,  and, 
not  reading  through  the  gospel  under  the  name 

*  Hist.  Eccles.  Lib.  VL  c.  12. 


256  EVIDENCES  OF  THE 

of  Peter  which  was  produced  bj  them  [those 
who  were  pleased  with  it],  I  said,  If  this  is 
all  that  troubles  you,  let  the  book  be  read. 
But  having  since  learnt  from  what  has  been 
told  me,  that  their  minds  had  fallen  into  some 
heresy,  I  hasten  to  be  with  you  again,  breth- 
ren, so  that  you  may  expect  me  shortly.  Now 
we,  brethren,  know  that  a  like  heresy  was  held 
by  Marcion,  who  also  contradicted  himself,  not 
comprehending  what  he  said,  as  you  may  learn 
from  what  has  been  written  to  you.*  For  we 
have  been  able  to  procure  this  gospel  from 
others  who  use  it,  that  is,  from  his  followers, 
who  are  called  DocetcB  (for  the  greater  part 
of  the  opinions  in  question  belong  to  their  sys- 
tem), and,  having  gone  through  it,  we  have 
found  it  for  the  most  part  conformable  to  the 
true    doctrine    of   the    Saviour ;    but   there    are 


*  As  this  sentence  is  unimportant,  and  as  I  believe  the  present 
text  to  be  corrupt,  I  have  ventured  to  render  it  as  perhaps  it  should 
be  amended.  It  now  stands  thus  :  — 'H/xetf  Se,  aSeX(^ol,  KaraXa- 
(ioyLevoi  oTvolas  rjv  alpffrecos  6  MapKiavos,  Koi  eavra  rjvavTiovTO ,  fiTj 
voa>v  a  eXaXet,  a  fxaOrjaeade  e^  wi/  vfiiv  €ypd(pT).  'EbvPTjdrjfiev  yap 
Trap'  akXtov,  k.  t.  X.  I  would  read  the  first  words  as  follows  :  — 
'H/ifij  Se,  d8e\(f)m,  KareXd^op-fv  ort  opoias  tjv  alpecreas  6  MapKicov, 
OS  Koi  eavTot  rjvavriovTO ,  k.  t.  X. 

There  is  also  some  uncertainty  about  the  precise  meaning  of 
the  next  sentence  ;  but,  fortunately,  this  uncertainty  does  not  ex- 
tend to  any  thing  important  in  the  paragraph. 


GENUINENESS  OF  THE  GOSPELS.         257 

some  things  exceptionable,*  which  we  subjoin 
for  your  information.' " 

We  may  conclude,  from  this  account,  that 
the  Gospel  of  Peter  was  not  a  history  of 
Christ's  ministry.  Serapion  would  not  have 
regarded  with  such  indifference  as  he  first  man- 
ifested a  history  of  our  Lord,  ascribed  to  the 
Apostle  Peter,  which  he  had  not  before  seen. 
Were  it  genuine,  it  must  have  been  to  him, 
as  to  any  one  else,  an  object  of  great  interest. 
But  the  supposition  of  its  genuineness  is  too 
extravagant  to  require  discussion.  —  Nor  can 
we  suppose  it  to  have  been  an  original  his- 
tory (that  is  to  say,  not  a  compilation  from 
any  one  or  more  of  the  four  Gospels),  which, 
though  not  the  work  of  Peter,  was  yet  enti- 
tled to  credit.  For  it  is  impossible  that  the 
existence  of  such  a  history  should  not  have 
been  notorious  ;  that  it  should  not  have  been 
a  frequent  subject  of  remark ;  that  it  should 
have  been  unknown  to  Serapion,  himself  a 
bishop  and  a  controversial  writer ;  or,  even 
if  previously  unknown,  that  it  should  not  at 
once  have  excited  his  attention.  —  Nor  can  it 
have  been  a  history  founded  upon  one  or  more 


ra  fxev  nXeiova  tov  opdov  \6yov  Tov  ^arrjpos,  Tiva  8e  irpoabie- 
(rrakfifi/a. 

VOL.  III.  33 


258  EVIDENCES  OF  THE 

of  the  four  Gospels,  with  certain  additions  fa- 
voring the  opinions  of  the  Docetae.  When  we 
recollect  the  abundant  notices  of  Marcion's 
gospel,  which  was  only  a  mutilated  copy  of 
Luke's,  it  cannot  be  believed  that  there  was 
another  historical  book  extant  among  Marcion's 
followers,  of  a  similar  character  (except  that 
it  contained  some  obnoxious  additions),  of  which 
the  notices  are  so  scanty,  and  which  is  never 
mentioned  as  an  historical  book.  —  There  is 
still  another  supposition ;  that  it  was  a  his- 
tory undeserving  of  credit,  a  history  contain- 
ing many  fabulous  accounts.  But  this  is  in- 
consistent with  the  manner  in  which  Serapion 
mentions  it ;  for  he  speaks  of  it  with  but  shght 
censure,  commending  the  generality  of  its  con- 
tents ;  as  no  catholic  writer  of  his  time  would 
have  spoken  of  such  a  professed  history  of 
Christ's  ministry  as  we  have  last  imagined. 

The  Gospel  according  to  Peter,  then,  was 
not  an  historical  book  ;  and  this  appears,  not 
merely  from  what  has  been  said,  but  from  the 
fact,  that  neither  Serapion  nor  Eusebius  gives 
any  intimation  that  it  bore  that  character.  Se- 
rapion's  treatise  was  in  the  hands  of  Eusebius, 
as  it  probably  had  been  in  those  of  many  be- 
fore him.  It  treated  of  the  errors  in  the  book ; 
it  was  written  to  refute  them  ;  and,  had  these 


GENUINENESS  OF  THE  GOSPELS.         259 

errors  consisted  in  false  narratives  concerning 
Christ,  there  is  no  reasonable  doubt  that  ple- 
nary evidence  of  the  fact  would  have  existed, 
both  in  the  writings  of  Serapion  and  Euse- 
bius,  and  in  those  of  other  fathers.  It  ap- 
pears that  it  was  used  by  the  Gnostics,  and, 
had  it  been  a  professed  history  of  Christ's  min- 
istry used  by  them,  we  should  certainly  have 
had  much  more  full  information  concerning  it. 
The  supposition  that  it  was  not  an  historical 
book,  and  this  alone,  it  may  be  further  ob- 
served, agrees  with  the  manner  in  which  Sera- 
pion describes  it,  as  "  for  the  most  part  con- 
formable to  the  true  doctrine  "  (not  the  true 
history)  "  of  the  Saviour,  but  containing  some 
things  exceptionable." 

The  book,  it  may  be  added,  was  not  of  any 
importance  or  notoriety.  Serapion,  bishop  of 
Antioch,  in  his  time  the  principal  see  in  the 
East,  was,  as  we  have  seen,  unacquainted  with 
it,  till  his  attention  was  called  to  it  by  some 
Christians  of  his  diocese,  as  favoring  heretical 
doctrines.  We  may  conclude,  therefore,  that 
it  was  unknown  to  a  great  majority  of  Chris- 
tians, his  contemporaries.  Besides  the  notice 
of  it  by  him,  we  find  the  following  passage 
in  Origen  :  —  "  Some  say  that  the  brothers  of 
Jesus  were  the  sons   of  Joseph  by  a  wife  to 


260  EVIDENCES  OF  THE 

whom  he  was  married  before  Mary,  relying 
upon  the  tradition  in  the  Gospel  according  to 
Peter  or  the  book  of  James."  *  It  is  also  re- 
ferred to  by  Eusebius  and  Jerome,  who  men- 
tion it  as  an  apocryphal  work  falsely  ascribed 
to  Peter.  Eusebius  especially  enumerates  it 
among  those  books  which  were  brought  forward 
by  the  heretics  under  the  names  of  Apostles ; 
such  as  no  writer  of  the  Church  had  thought 
worth  commemorating,  they  being  altogether 
devoid  of  good  sense  and  piety.  No  fragment 
of  it  remains,  and  these  are  all  the  notices  of 
it  found  in  the  first  four  centuries. 

We  now  come  to  Origen.  It  is  doubtful 
whether  the  Homilies  on  Luke,  which  have 
been  so  often  mentioned  in  this  Chapter,  are 
to  be  referred  to  him  as  their  author.f  If  they 
are  not,  there  is  no  passage  in  all  Origen's 
works  in  which  he  speaks  of  an  apocryphal 
gospel  as  used  by  any  Gentile  Christians,  cath- 
olic or  heretical,  besides  that  relating  to  the 
Gospel  of  Peter  which  has  just  been  quoted. 
Of  the  book  of  James,  mentioned  in  connec- 
tion with  it,  I  shall  speak  hereafter. 


*  Comment,  in  Matth.  Tom.  x.  0pp.  III.  462,  463. 
t  See  the  Preface  to  the  third  volume  of  De  la  Rue's  edition 
of  Origen. 


GENUINENESS  OF  THE  GOSPELS.         261 

I  HAVE  remarked  on  three  titles  of  apocry- 
phal gospels  mentioned  by  the  Author  of  the 
Homilies  on  Luke.  There  is  one  other,  "  The 
Gospel  according  to  Thomas,"  to  which  like- 
wise I  shall  advert  hereafter. 

Besides  those  writers  whom  I  have  quoted, 
there  is  none  who  speaks  of  apocryphal  gos- 
pels before  Eusebius,  in  the  first  half  of  the 
fourth  century.  He  enumerates  among  heret- 
ical books,  "  altogether  absurd  and  irreligious," 
three  of  those  already  mentioned,  namely,  the 
gospels  of  Peter,  Thomas,  and  Matthias,*  but 
gives  no  further  information  concerning  them, 
and  adds  no  new  title  to  the  list. 

I  HAVE  brought  down  the  inquiry  respecting 
apocryphal  gospels  to  a  much  later  period  than 
was  necessary.  No  one  will  suppose  that  a 
book  of  which  there  is  no  mention  before  the 
fourth  century  could  have  served  the  Gnostics 
as  a  basis  for  their  doctrines.  If  any  book 
appeared  after  the  commencement  of  the  fourth 
century,  pretending  to  be  an  original  history  of 
Christ's  ministry,  —  of  which  we  have  no  proof, 
and    which,   in    the    nature   of  things,   is  alto- 

*  Hist.  Eccles.  Lib.  IH.  c.  25. 


262  EVIDENCES  OF  THE 

gether  improbable,  —  no  one  will  imagine  that 
it  was  entitled  to  regard.  Of  any  book  of  an 
early  age,  purporting  to  give  an  account  of  his 
ministry  different  from  that  contained  in  the 
four  Gospels,  it  is  a  moral  impossibility  that  we 
should  not  have  received  full  and  unequivocal 
information  from  writers  before  the  time  of 
Eusebius. 

There  is  no  reason,  as  I  conceive,  to  sup- 
pose that  the  apocryphal  gospels  which  have 
been  mentioned,  or  the  other  apocryphal  books 
extant  during  the  first  three  centuries,  were 
commonly  written  with  the  fraudulent  design 
of  furnishing  the  pretended  authority  of  Jesus 
or  his  Apostles  in  support  of  false  doctrines  or 
spurious  history  ;  or  that,  when  they  bore  the 
name  of  an  Apostle,  it  was  intended  that  they 
should  be  ascribed  to  him  as  his  proper  work. 
The  author  of  such  a  book  may  have  put  his 
own  opinions  into  the  mouth  of  an  Apostle  by 
a  common  rhetorical  artifice,  as  Plato  in  his 
dialogues  introduces  Socrates  and  Timseus  as 
teaching  his  doctrines ;  or  as  if  one,  at  the 
present  day,  were  to  publish  a  work  calling  it 
"  The  Gospel  as  taught  by  {according  to)  St. 
Paul,"  or  "  The  Gospel  as  taught  by  St. 
James."     Of   this   mode   of   writing   we    have 


GENUINENESS  OF  THE  GOSPELS.         263 

a  remarkable  example  in  the  Clementine  Hom- 
ilies, the  author  of  which  could  have  intended 
no  deception.  But  the  whole  account  given 
in  them  of  the  actions  of  Peter  is  a  fiction, 
and  the  discourses  ascribed  to  him  contain  only 
the  writer's  own  views  of  the  character  of 
Christianity.  According,  however,  to  the  an- 
cient use  of  language,  this  book  might  have 
been,  and  possibly  was,  called  "  The  Gospel 
according  to  Peter."  Such  books  might  be, 
or  it  might  be  fancied  that  they  were,  found- 
ed on  some  traditionary  information  respect- 
ing the  teaching  of  an  Apostle.  Thus  a  book 
called  "  The  Preaching  of  Peter,"  or  "  The 
Preaching  of  Peter  and  Paul,"  was  regarded 
both  by  Clement  of  Alexandria  and  by  Lac- 
tantius  as  a  work  of  some  authority.  Lac- 
tantius  supposed  it  to  be  a  record  of  their 
preaching  while  together  at  Rome.*  Clement 
quotes  it  in  the  same  manner  as  he  quotes  "  The 
Traditions  "  before  mentioned,  and  the  works  of 
the  Pagan  philosophers,  not  in  evidence  of  facts, 
but  as  corresponding  with  and  confirming  his 
own  opinions. 

Irenaeus  speaks,  as  we  have  seen,  of  a  gos- 
pel   by   Judas    Iscariot.       There    was   reported 

*  Institut.  Lib.  IV.  c.  21. 


264  EVIDENCES  OF  THE 

to  be  another  under  the  name  of  Matthias,  and 
another  under  the  name  of  Thomas ;  but  these 
titles  are  not  mentioned  before  the  third  cen- 
tury. Of  the  books  or  of  the  titles  which  have 
been  enumerated,  bearing  the  names  of  Apos- 
tles, there  is  besides  only  the  Gospel  of  Peter, 
which  became  known  to  Serapion  about  the 
close  of  the  second  century.  But  it  is  alto- 
gether incredible  that  any  Gentile  Christian 
in  the  second  century  should  have  engaged 
in  so  hopeless  and  foolish  an  attempt,  as  to 
endeavour  to  pass  off  a  composition  of  his  own 
as  a  gospel  written  by  an  Apostle,  —  a  gospel 
which  had  never  before  been  heard  of.  Nor 
is  it  much  more  likely  that  any  Gentile  Chris- 
tian, without  ascribing  his  work  to  an  Apos- 
tle, would,  after  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem, 
have  pretended  to  give  an  original  history  of 
Christ's  ministry  at  variance  with  the  four 
Gospels.  As  we  have  already  seen,  there  is  no 
evidence  that  any  such  work  existed. 

The  subject  of  the  apocryphal  gospels  has, 
as  it  was  natural  it  should,  attracted  much  at- 
tention. It  is  a  subject  which  deserved  to  be 
thoroughly  examined.  But  the  unavoidable 
consequence  of  the  manner  in  which  it  has  been 
treated  has  been  to  produce  a  very  false  im- 
pression  of  their  importance.     They  were  ob- 


GENUINENESS  OF  THE  GOSPELS.  265 

scure  writings,  very  little  regarded  or  known  by 
any  Christians,  catholic  or  heretical.  We  find 
in  Justin  Martyr  and  Tertullian  nothing  con- 
cerning them ;  in  Irenaeus,  two  titles,  one  pur- 
porting to  be  that  of  a  book,  which  most 
probably  was  not  extant,  and  the  other  like- 
wise perhaps  originating  in  mistake,  but  sup- 
posed to  belong  to  a  Valentinian  gospel,  which 
there  is  no  evidence  that  the  Valentinians  ever 
appealed  to.  Clement  gives  some  extracts  from 
a  gospel  which  he  found  quoted  by  the  En- 
cratites  or  ascetics.  Serapion  mentions  the 
Gospel  of  Peter,  as  in  the  hands  of  persons  be- 
longing to  a  parish  in  his  diocese,  called  Rhos- 
sus,  and  as  used  by  some  of  the  Docetae.  Ori- 
gen  once  refers  to  the  same  book.  And  the  Au- 
thor of  the  Homilies  on  Luke  adds  three  other 
titles  of  books  of  which  he  gives  no  account.* 


*  I  have  not  adverted  in  the  text  to  one  title  mentioned  hy  the 
Author  of  the  Homilies,  namely,  "  The  Gospel  according  to  the 
Twelve  Apostles"  ;  because,  as  we  learn  from  Jerome  (Advers. 
Pelagianos,  Lib.  HL  0pp.  T.  IV.  P.  II.  col.  533),  this  was  only  a 
name  which  was  sometimes  given  to  the  Gospel  of  the  Hebrews. 
It  may  naturally  have  had  its  origin  in  the  circumstance,  that  the 
Hebrew  Christians  affirmed,  that  the  Gospel  of  Matthew,  which 
alone  they  used,  contained  the  Gospel  as  taught  by  the  Apostles, 
or,  in  other  words,  was  the  Gospel  according  to  the  Apostles. 
But  there  is  something  more  to  be  observed.  The  title  given  is 
not  simply  "  The  Gospel  according  to  the  Apostles,"  but  "  The 
Gospel  according  to  the  Twelve  Apostles."     The  Hebrew  Chris- 

voL.  III.  34 


266  EVIDENCES  OF  THE 

These  are  all  the  notices  of  apocryphal  gospels 
to  be  found  in  all  the  writers  of  Christian  antiq- 
uity before  the  end  of  the  third  century.  Had 
they  been  works  of  any  notoriety,  works  possess- 
ing any  intrinsic  or  accidental  importance,  we 
should  have  had  page  after  page  of  controversy, 
discussion,  and  explanation  concerning  them. 

About  the  beginning  of  the  last  century,  a 
manuscript  was  made  known  of  a  gospel  as- 
cribed to  Barnabas,  in  the  Italian  language,  but 
supposed  to  be  translated  from  the  Arabic.  It 
is  the  work  of  a  Mahometan,  or  a  work  inter- 
polated by  a  Mahometan.  Much  more  has 
been  written  by  different  authors  about  this 
book  *  than  all  that  is  to  be  found  in  the 
Christian  writers  of  the  first  three  centuries 
concerning  apocryphal  gospels.  Yet  it  is  a 
book   of  which,    probably,  few   of  my  readers 

tians,  generally,  did  not  recognize  the  Apostleship  of  St.  Paul, 
but  regarded  him  as  a  false  teacher.  They  revolted  at  his  doc- 
trine of  the  abolition  of  their  Law,  and  of  their  peculiar  national 
distinctions.  Hence  they  may  have  called  their  Gospel  the 
Gospel  according  to  the  Twelve  Apostles,  of  whose  number  he 
was  not,  in  order  to  imply  that  it  was  from  the  twelve  Apostles, 
and  not  from  him,  the  preacher  to  the  Gentiles,  that  the  true 
doctrines  of  the  Gospel  were  to  be  learned. 

*  See  Fabricins,  HI.  373,  seqq.,  Jones,  I.  162,  seqq.,  Sale's 
Translation  of  the  Koran  (Ed.  1825),  in  his  Preliminary  Dis- 
course, p.  102,  and  in  his  Notes,  Vol.  I.  pp.  01,  170;  and  the 
works  referred  to  by  the  authors  mentioned. 


GENUINENESS  OF  THE  GOSPELS.         267 

have  ever  heard ;  and  of  which  he  who  has 
known  any  thing  may  have  forgotten  what  he 
knew.  It  is  easy  to  apply  this  fact  to  assist 
ourselves  in  judging  of  the  importance  to  be 
attached  to  the  notices  of  apocryphal  gospels 
found  in  the  fathers. 

It  may  seem  as  if,  in  reference  to  our  present 
inquiry,  any  further  discussion  of  the  subject 
must  be  useless ;  and  it  would  be  so,  but  for  the 
misapprehensions  which  have  existed  concern- 
ing it.  There  are  some  fabulous  books  still 
extant,  which,  thus  standing  as  it  were  in  the 
foreground,  are  more  likely,  at  first  view,  to  be 
taken  for  true  representatives  of  ancient  apoc- 
ryphal gospels,  than  those  titles  and  fragments, 
appearing  in  the  remote  distance,  with  which 
alone  we  are  in  fact  concerned.  These  books 
have,  in  modern  times,  been  called  "  Gospels  of 
the  Nativity  of  the  Virgin  Mary,"  and  "  Gospels 
of  the  Infancy,"  that  is,  of  the  infancy  of  Jesus. 
They  have,  likewise,  directly  or  indirectly,  been 
brought  into  competition  with  the  four  Gospels. 
But  whatever  tends  to  weaken  the  exclusive 
authority  of  the  catholic  Gospels,  or  to  confound 
them  in  the  same  class  with  fabulous  writings, 
opens  the  way  for  a  vague  conjecture  that  there 
may  have  been  in  early  times  other  histories  of 


268  EVIDENCES  OF  THE 

the  ministry  of  Christ  at  variance  with  those 
Gospels,  and  entitled  to  as  much  or  more  credit. 
We  will,  therefore,  go  on  to  take  notice  of 
the  works  referred  to. 

In  the  quotation  that  I  have  given  from  Ori- 
gen,*  besides  the  mention  of  the  Gospel  of 
Peter,  there  is  mention,  likewise,  of  a  book  of 
James.  About  the  middle  of  the  sixteenth 
century,  the  celebrated  visionary  Postel  brought 
to  the  notice  of  European  scholars  a  work  writ- 
ten in  Greek,  a  manuscript  of  which  he  found 
in  the  East.  It  is  a  book  of  about  a  quarter  of 
the  size  of  the  Gospel  of  Mark.  He  entitled  it 
"  The  Protevangelion  (that  is,  the  First-Gospel) 
of  St.  James  the  Less  "  ;  f  —  the  pretended 
events  which  it  relates  being  supposed  by  him 
to  have  occurred  prior  to  those  recorded  by  St. 
Mark,  to  whose  Gospel  he  fancied  it  intended 
for  an  introduction.  But  a  number  of  manu- 
scripts of  it  are  now  known,  and  the  title  Pro- 
tevangelion is  not  supported  by  their  authority.  J 

*  See  before,  pp.  259,  260. 

f  The  work  has  been  republished  by  Fabricius,  Jones,  and 
Thilo. 

J  Its  title  is  given  with  much  diversity  in  different  manuscripts, 
but  in  all  its  variations  expresses  that  the  subject  of  the  work  is  a 
History  of  the  Nativity  of  Mary.  In  what  is  supposed  to  be  the 
oldest  manuscript  it  runs  thus  :  —  "A  Narration  and  History  how 


GENUINENESS  OF  THE  GOSPELS.         269 

The  author,  in  the  conclusion  of  the  work,  gives 
his  name  as  James.  It  is  a  collection  of  legen- 
dary fables,  principally  concerning  the  nativity 
of  the  Virgin  Mary,  her  history  and  that  of  Jo- 
seph, and  the  nativity  of  Jesus.  The  nativity 
of  the  Virgin  is  represented  to  have  been  mi- 
raculous, like  that  of  Samuel,  and  to  have  been 
announced  by  an  angel.  Some  things  are  in- 
terwoven from  the  first  two  chapters  ascribed  to 
Matthew,  and  from  the  account  of  our  Saviour's 
birth  given  by  Luke.  There  are  two  coinci- 
dences of  its  narrative  with  what  is  found  in 
ancient  authors,  which  deserve  notice.  The 
first  relates  to  the  passage  of  Origen  just  re- 
ferred to. 

Origen  says,  that,  conformably  to  the  book  of 
James,  the  individuals  called  in  the  Gospels  the 
brothers*  of  Jesus  were  children  of  Joseph  by 
a  former  wife.  In  the  Protevangelion,  Mary  is 
represented  as  having  been  dedicated  by  her 
parents  as  a  virgin  to  the  service  of  God  in  the 

the  superholy  Mother  of  God  (17  Wepayla  Qcotokos)  was  born." 
(Thilo,  p.  liii.)  But  the  book  is  not  confined  to  a  mere  account 
of  the  nativity  of  Mary  ;  it  extends  (as  appears  above)  to  the  his- 
tory of  her  life. 

*  The  word  in  the  original,  aSeX^oi,  should  be  rendered  kins- 
mep,,  according  to  a  common  use  of  it.  It  does  not  in  the  passage 
in  question  denote  brothers,  in  the  limited  sense  of  the  English 
word. 


270  EVIDENCES  OF  THE 

Temple,  but  at  the  age  of  twelve  years  as  hav- 
ing been  removed  thence  by  the  priests,  and 
committed  in  trust  to  Joseph,  with  the  purpose 
of  her  becoming  his  wife.  Before  receiving  her, 
he  is  represented  as  saying,  "  I  am  an  old  man 
and  have  children."  *  The  story,  that  Joseph, 
when  he  married  Mary,  was  an  old  man  with 
children  by  a  former  wife,  is  found  in  many 
writers  after  the  middle  of  the  fourth  century. 

One  of  the  fables  in  this  book  is,  that  Mary 
after  childbirth  remained  in  all  respects  as  a 
virgin. t  The  story  is  referred  to  and  counte- 
nanced by  Clement  of  Alexandria.!  Tertullian, 
on  the  contrary,  in  contending  against  those 
Gnostics  who  asserted  that  the  body  of  Christ 
was  not  a  body  of  flesh  and  blood,  and  that  it 
was  in  no  part  derived  from  his  mother,  insists 
on  his  proper  birth,  and  incidentally  represents 
it  as  in  all  respects  like  that  of  others.^  It  is 
not,  however,  to  be  inferred  that  the  Gnostics 
maintained  the  opinion  just  mentioned ;  for,  on 
the  one  hand,  the  Marcionites  denied  altogether 


*  Protevangelion,  c.  9.  f  Ibid.  cc.  19,  20. 

X  'AXX',  wr  €oiK€v,  To2s  TToXXoT?  Koi  fifXP'-  ^^^  Soicel  rj  Mapihfi 
XeX^  eivai  8ta  tt]V  tov  Tratbiov  yfvvjjaiv,  ovk  ovcra  Xfx^w'  koi  yap 
fifTO.  TO  TfKelv  avrrjv  fiaicodelaav  (ftaai  nves  napOtvov  evpedrjvai. 
Stroinat.  VII.  ^  16.  pp.  889,  890. 

^  In  his  tract  De  Carne  Christi. 


GENUINENESS  OF  THE  GOSPELS.         271 

the  nativity  of  Christ ;  and,  on  the  other,  that 
opinion  was  not  necessarily  connected  with  the 
doctrine  of  the  theosophic  Gnostics,  who  as- 
cribed to  Christ  a  body,  though  not  a  human 
body.  But,  with  a  strange  approximation  to 
the  Gnostic  denial  of  the  proper  body  of  Christ, 
it  has  become  the  established  faith  of  the  Ro- 
man Catholic  church.*  It  was  made  an  article 
of  orthodox  belief  by  the  Lateran  Council,  held 
under  Pope  Martin  the  First  in  the  year  649. 

Unless  Origen,  under  the  name  of  the  book  of 
James,  refers  to  some  work  like  the  Protevan- 
gelion,  that  is,  to  some  pretended  history  of  the 
mother  of  our  Lord,  which  may  have  served  for 
the  foundation  of  that  now  extant,  there  is  no 
mention  of  any  such  work  before  the  latter  half 


*  "  II  convient  toutefois  qu'il  est  de  la  foi  catholique,  que  Ma- 
rie est  demeuree  Vierge  apr^s  Tenfanteraent  comme  devant." 
Fleury,  Hist.  Eccles.  An.  847.  —  In  the  Catechism  of  the  Council 
of  Trent  (P.  I.  Art.  3.  n.  13)  it  is  said,  —  "  Praeterea,  quo  nihil  ad- 
mirabilius  dici  omnino,  aut  cogitari  potest,  nascitur  [Christus] 
ex  matre  sine  ulla  maternae  virginitatis  diminutione,  et  quo  modo 
postea  ex  sepulcro  clauso  et  obsignato  egressus  est,  atque  ad 
discipulos  clausis  januis  introivit :  vel,  ne  a  rebus  etiam,  quae  a 
natura  quotidie  fieri  videmus,  discedatur,  quo  modo  solis  radii 
concretara  viiri  substantiam  penetrant,  neque  frangunt  tamen, 
aut  aliqua  ex  parte  laedunt ;  simili,  inquam,  et  altiori  modo  Jesus 
Christus  ex  materno  alvo,  sine  ullo  maternae  virginitatis  detri- 
mento,  editus  est,  ipsius  enim  incorruptam  virginitatem  verissimis 
laudibus  celebramus." 


272  EVIDENCES  OF  THE 

of  the  fourth  century.  In  the  fourth  and  fifth 
centuries,  it  seems  probable  that  there  was 
more  than  one  narrative  of  this  kind  in  exist- 
ence ;  but  that  these  narratives  were  generally 
regarded  as  fabulous  and  worthless.*  During 
the  ages  of  darkness  that  followed,  the  legends 
concerning  the  Virgin  found  favor,  in  common 
with  other  fables  which  overspread  ecclesiasti- 
cal and  profane  history.  They  have  entered 
into  the  established  mythology  of  the  Roman 
Catholic  church,  and  have  furnished  concep- 
tions for  its  great  masters  in  the  art  of  painting. 
But  the  particular  book  we  are  considering, 
the  Protevangelion,  never  obtained  such  credit 
in  the  West  as  in  the  East.  In  the  West,  its 
existence  had  become  unknown  before  it  was 
brought  to  light  by  Postel.  In  the  East,  it 
seems  probable  that  it  was  at  one  period  read 
in  some  churches  on  certain  holydays,  in  the 
same  manner  as  the  legends  of  Saints  were 
read  on  their  festivals.!  The  oldest  manuscript 
of  it  now  known  is  referred  to  the  tenth  cen- 
tury, t 

The  fables  respecting  the  nativity  and  history 
of  Mary,  like  those  which  went  to  the  compila- 

*  Thilo,  p.  Ix,  seqq. ;  p.  xci,  seqq.     Conf.  Epiphanius,  Hasres. 
XXIV.  ^  12.  p.  94. 

■f  Thilo,  pp.  lix,  Ix.  t  Ibid.  p.  liii. 


GENUINENESS  OF  THE  GOSPELS.         273 

tion  of  other  apocryphal  writings,  being  desti- 
tute of  all  authority,  were  recast  in  different 
forms  by  different  hands.  They  are  extant, 
with  much  diversity  from  the  Protevangelion,  in 
a  work  found  in  two  Latin  manuscripts,  one  of 
the  fourteenth  and  the  other  of  the  fifteenth 
century,*  in  which  they  are  connected  at  the 
end  with  a  few  stories  of  miracles  performed  by 
our  Lord  in  his  infancy,  f  In  Latin,  also,  there 
is  another  work,  shorter  and  less  extravagant 
than  those  which  have  been  mentioned,  relat- 
ing to  the  birth  and  history  of  Mary,  of  which 
the  modern  title  is  "  The  Gospel  of  the  Nativity 
of  Mary."  f  Of  this  the  pretended  Hebrew 
original  was  ascribed  to  the  Apostle  Matthew, 
and  the  translation  to  Jerome.  The  fiction  by 
which  Jerome  is  represented  as  its  translator 
shows  that  its  composition  must  have  been  later 
than  the  fourth  century. 

We  proceed  to  the  Books  of  the  Infancy.  — 
As  I  have  mentioned,  the  Author  of  the  Homi- 
lies on  Luke  gives  the  title  of  a  Gospel  accord- 
ing to  Thomas ;  and  the  same  title  is  found  in 


*  Thilo,  p.  cviii. 

f  The  work  is  published  by  Thilo  under  the  title  of  "  Historia 
de  Nativitate  Marias  et  de  Infantia  Salvatoris." 
I  It  may  be  found  in  Fabricius,  Jones,  and  Thilo. 
VOL.  III.  35 


274  EVIDENCES  OF  THE 

subsequent  writers.*  We  may  conjecture  it  to 
have  been  one  of  those  professed  expositions 
of  Christianity  which  were  called  "  gospels." 
Nor  is  there  any  thing  in  the  ancient  writers 
who  mention  it  to  countenance  a  different  sup- 
position. But  there  is  now  extant  in  Greek  a 
collection  of  fables  concerning  the  infancy  and 
childhood  of  Jesus,  which  is  not,  in  the  manu- 
scripts of  it,  entitled  "  a  gospel,"  but  the  writer 
of  which  announced  himself  as  Thomas  an 
Israelite.!  This  book  has  been  thought  to  be 
essentially  the  same  with  the  gospel  mentioned 
by  the  Author  of  the  Homilies,  and  to  have 
been  in  existence  in  the  second  century.  But 
of  such  books,  more  or  less  resembling  one  an- 
other, there  are  a  number  extant,  which  have 
passed  in  modern  times  under  the  name  of 
"  Gospels  of  the  Infancy." 

One  of  this  number  (much  larger  than  the 
book  ascribed  to  Thomas  in  its  present  state) 
is  written  in  Arabic.  It  was  published  with  a 
Latin  translation  in  the  year  1697,  by  Henry 
Sike,  Professor  of  the  Oriental  Languages  in 
the  University  of  Cambridge. J     With  this  the 


*  See  Fabricius,  I.  131,  seqq.     Thilo,  Ixxix,  seqq. 

+  A  fragment,  the  first  part,  of  this  book  may  be  found  in 
Fabricius  and  Jones.    The  whole,  as  now  extant,  is  given  by  Thilo. 

t  The  Latin  version  has  been  republished  by  Fabricius  and 
Jones,  and  the  original  with  the  version,  by  Thilo. 


GENUINENESS  OF  THE  GOSPELS.         273 

name  of  Thomas  is  not  connected.  It  con- 
sists of  stories  of  pretended  miracles,  which 
accompanied  the  birth  and  infancy  of  our  Sav- 
iour, and  which  he  himself  performed  when  a 
child.  There  is  some  fancy  in  these  fictions. 
They  have  a  tinge  of  Eastern  invention,  but 
are  essentially  of  the  same  character  as  the 
common  legends  of  the  Middle  Ages.  The 
relater  sometimes  refers  to  facts  in  the  Gos- 
pels, and  connects  his  story  with  them.  Thus 
he  gives  a  narrative  concerning  two  robbers, 
whom  he  represents  as  the  same  afterwards 
crucified  with  Jesus.*  These  and  similar  fa- 
bles became  popular  in  the  East,  particularly 
among  the  followers  of  Mahomet.  Two  of 
them  appear  in  the  Koran,t  and  others  have 
been  current  among  Mahometan  writers. f 

The  compilation  in  Greek  that  bears  the 
name  of  Thomas  has  a  general  correspondence 
with  the  last  half  of  the  preceding.  Omitting 
those    pretended   miracles   which    accompanied 

*  Cap.  23. 

f  One  is  of  Christ's  speaking  while  in  his  cradle  (Arabic  Gos- 
pel of  the  Infancy,  c.  1),  which  he  did  according  to  the  Koran, 
ch.  3.  Vol.  I.  p.  58,  and  ch.  19.  Vol.  II.  p.  145.  The  other  is  of 
his  making  birds  of  clay  to  which  he  gave  life  (Arabic  Gospel, 
capp.  36,  46),  which  is  referred  to  in  the  Koran,  ch.  3.  Vol.  I. 
p.  59,  and  ch.  5.  Vol.  I.  p.  139. 

X  See  Sike's  notes  (republished  by  Thilo). 


276  EVIDENCES  OF  THE 

the  nativity  and  infancy  of  Jesus,  it  begins 
with  those  performed  in  his  childhood.  Of 
these,  about  half  the  stories  in  one  work  cor- 
respond to  those  in  the  other,  though  the  order 
in  which  they  are  arranged  is  not  the  same, 
and  they  are  often  differently  told.  Both  works 
imply  a  very  low  state  of  intellect  and  morals 
in  those  by  whom  and  for  whom  they  were 
written.  In  some  of  the  fictions,  Jesus,  as  a 
child,  is  represented  as  violent  and  cruel,  so 
that  his  father,  Joseph,  is  introduced  as  say- 
ing, —  "  From  this  time  we  will  not  suffer  him 
to  go  out  of  the  house  ;  for  whoever  makes 
him  angry  is  killed."  *  The  notions  of  the 
writer  of  either  book  seem  in  this  respect  to 
have  been  derived  from  the  use  of  power  by 
an  Oriental  despot. 

A  similar  collection  of  fables  appears  to  be, 
or  to  have  been,  extant  in  different  languages 
of  the  East.f  Several  manuscript  collections 
of  them  are  extant  in  Latin,  more  or  less  di- 
verse from  one  another,  and  from  the  Arabic  and 
the  Greek  compilation.  One  only  of  these  is 
known  to  bear  the  name  of  Thomas.  The 
author's  name  is  otherwise   given   as  Matthew 


*  Arabic  Gospel,  c.  49.     Gospel  of  Thomas,  c.  14. 
I  Thilo,  p.  xxxii,  seqq. 


GENUINENESS   OF  THE  GOSPELS.         277 

the  Evangelist,  or  James  the  son  of  Joseph  (to 
whom  the  Protevangelion  is  ascribed)  ;  and  in 
one  copy  the  pretended  authors  are  Onesimus 
and  John  the  Evangelist.* 

In  regard  to  these  fables  respecting  the  in- 
fancy and*  childhood  of  Jesus,  we  find  an  early 
notice  of  one  of  them  in  Irenaeus.  He  is 
giving  an  account  of  a  sect,  before  mentioned, 
the  Marcosians,  who  believed,  like  the  Jewish 
Cabalists,  that  there  were  profound  mysteries 
hidden  in  the  letters  of  the  alphabet.!  After 
speaking  of  their  perversion  of  the  Scriptures, 
Irenseus  says  :  — 

"  Moreover,  they  bring  forward  an  unspeak- 
able number  of  apocryphal  and  spurious  writ- 
ings, which  they  have  fabricated,  to  confound 
the  simple,  and  such  as  are  ignorant  of  those 
writings  which  contain  the  truth.  To  this  end, 
they  also  adopt  that  fiction  concerning  our  Lord, 
that,  when  he  was  a  child,  and  learning  the 
alphabet,  his  master,  as  usual,  told  him  to  say 
Alpha  (A),  and  that,  upon  his  repeating  Alptia, 
when  his  master  next  told  him  to  say  Beta  (B), 
the  Lord  replied,  '  Do  you  first  tell  me  what 
Alpha  is,  and  then  I  will  tell  you  what  Beta  is.' 
And  this  they  explain  as  showing  that  he  alone 

*  Thilo,  p.  cv,  seqq.  f  See  before,  p.  152,  seqq. 


278  EVIDENCES  OF  THE 

knew  the  mystery,  which  he  revealed,   in  the 
letter  Alpha."  * 

We  may  first  incidentally  remark  on  this 
passage,  that  the  many  apocryphal  books  fabri- 
cated by  the  Marcosians  could  have  had  but  a 
short-lived  existence,  and  were  but  of  little 
note ;  since  no  one  of  them  is  specified  by 
name  in  any  writer;  nor  does  Irenaeus  in  his 
long  article  on  the  sect,  nor  any  other  writer, 
refer  elsewhere  to  any  use  which  the  Marco- 
sians made  of  them.  It  may  next  be  ob- 
served, that  the  passage  is  remarkable  as  af- 
fording one  of  the  only  two  examples,  which 
are  reported  by  the  writers  during  the  three 
centuries  succeeding  the  death  of  our  Lord,  of 
an  argument  for  a  Gnostic  doctrine,  founded 
on  a  narrative  concerning  him  not  related  in 
the  Gospels.f  But  that  this  narrative  was 
already  incorporated  into  a  collection  of  like 
stories  does  not  appear  from  Irenaeus.  His 
words,  on  the  contrary,  rather  imply  that  it 
was  not.  "  In  addition,"  he  says,  to  their  apoc- 
ryphal books,  for  this  is  the  force  of  his  lan- 
guage, "  they  adopt  for  the  same  purpose  that 


*  Cont.  Haeres.  Lib.  I.  c.  20.  p.  91. 

f  The  other  example  which  I  refer  to  is  the  use,  before  men- 
tioned (see  p.  241,  seqq.),  which  was  made  by  the  Encratites  of 
a  passage  in  the  Gospel  of  the  Egyptians. 


GENUINENESS  OF  THE  GOSPELS.         279 

fiction,"   a   well-known   fiction,   as   is   implied, 
"  concerning  the  Lord."  * 

This  fiction  has  become  the  foundation  of 
two  different  stories  in  the  Arabic  compilation,! 
and  of  three  in  the  Greek,t  in  the  former  our 
Saviour  being  represented  as  having  had  two 
successive  schoolmasters,  and  in  the  latter, 
three  ;  and,  as  might  be  expected  from  its  an- 
tiquity, none  of  the  fables  of  the  same  class 
appears  to  have  been  more  widely  circulated.^ 


*  "  YlpoairapoKayL^avovin  he.  els  tovto  kokuvo  to  oa8iovpyr][ia,^^ 
K.  T.  \. 

t  Capp.  48,  49.  J  Capp.  6,  7,  8,  14,  15, 

§  "  As  to  the  life  of  Jesus  Christ,"  says  Chardin,  "  the  Per- 
sian legends  contain  not  only  what  is  in  the  Gospels,  but  likewise 
all  the  tales  found  in  the  legends  of  the  Eastern  Christians,  and 
particularly  in  an  Armenian  legend,  eniiiled  TEvangile  Enfant,* 
which  is  nothing  but  a  tissue  of  fabulous  miracles  ;  such,  for  ex- 
ample, as  that  Jesus,  seeing  Joseph  much  troubled  at  having  cut 
a  board  of  cedar  too  short,  said  to  him  :  — '  Why  are  you  so 
troubled  1  Give  me  one  end  of  the  board  and  pull  the  other, 
and  it  will  grow  longer.'  Another  story  is,  that,  being  sent  to 
school  to  learn  the  alphabet,  his  master  directed  him  to  pronounce 
A  ;  he  paused  and  said  to  his  master,  — '  Tell  me,  first,  why  the 
first  letter  of  the  alphabet  is  formed  as  it  is.'  Upon  this,  his 
master  treating  him  as  a  talkative  little  child,  he  answered,  — 
'  I  will  not  say  A,  till  you  tell  me  why  the  first  letter  is  made 
as  it  is.'  But  his  master  growing  angry,  he  said  to  him,  — '  I 
will  instruct  you,  then.  The  first  letter  of  the  alphabet  is  formed 
of  three  perpendicular  lines  on  a  horizontal  line  —  (the  Armenian 

*  The  title  is  so  rendered  by  Chardin. 


280  EVIDENCES  OF  THE 

During  a  long  interval  after  Irenaeus,  we  hear 
nothing  more  of  fables  respecting  the  infancy 
and  childhood  of  Christ.  There  is  nothing 
necessarily  miraculous  in  the  supposed  fact  re- 
lated in  the  story  which  he  quotes  ;  on  the  con- 
trary, none  but  the  Marcosians,  or  those  who  en- 
tertained like  notions  with  them  of  the  myste- 
rious significance  of  the  letters  of  the  alphabet, 
could  have  inferred  from  it  any  supernatural 
knowledge  in  the  infant  Jesus.  Epiphanius  is 
the  first  writer  who  distinctly  refers  to  stories 
of  fabulous  miracles  performed  by  Jesus  in  his 
childhood  ;  and  these  stories  he  does  not  alto- 
gether reject.  The  miracle  at  the  marriage 
feast  at  Cana,  he  says,  was  the  first  performed 
by  Jesus,  "  except,  perhaps,  those  which  he  is 
reported  to  have  performed  in  his  youth,  in 
play  as  it  were,  according  to  what  some  say 


5?  * 


A  is  thus  formed,  very  like  an  inverted  m)  —  to  teach  us  that 
the  Beginning  of  all  things  is  one  Essence  in  three  Persons.'  " 
Voyages  en  Pefse,  Tom.  II.  pp.  269,  270.  Ed.  4to.  1735. 

The  difference  between  the  Armenian  version  of  the  story  of 
the  alphabet  and  that  given  by  the  Marcosians  shows  the  changes 
to  which  fables  of  this  sort  were  exposed.  —  Two  stories  dif- 
ferent from  each  other,  but  both  corresponding  essentially  to 
the  marvel  of  lengthening  the  cedar  board,  are  found,  one  in 
the  Arabic  Gospel  (c.  39),  and  the  other  in  the  Gospel  of 
Thomas  (c.  13). 

*  Haeres.  LI.  §  20.  0pp.  I.  442. 


GENUINENESS  OF  THE  GOSPELS.  281 

After  him,  Chrjsostom  expresses  his  opinion, 
that  the  miracle  of  Cana  was  the  first  performed 
by  our  Saviour,  and  rejects,  as  wholly  undeserv- 
ing of  credit,  the  fables  concerning  miracles 
performed  by  him  in  his  childhood.* 

As  regards  the  book  now  extant,  of  which 
the  author  calls  himself  Thomas,  it  could  not 
have  been  that  referred  to  by  the  Author  of  the 
Homilies  on  Luke,  and  subsequently  by  some 
other  ancient  writers,  under  the  name  of  the 
Gospel  of  Thomas,  for  it  is  evidently  a  com- 
position of  the  Middle  Ages.  All,  it  would 
seem,  that  can  be  meant  by  those  modern 
writers  who  have  regarded  the  two  books  as 
the  same,  is,  that  the  one  anciently  called  the 
Gospel  of  Thomas  served  as  a  basis  for  the 
present  compilation  of  fables.  But  the  present 
book  bears  so  thoroughly,  in  its  matter  and 
style,  the  character  of  an  age  far  later  than 
that  in  which  the  Gospel  of  Thomas  is  first 
mentioned,  that,  should  we  attempt  to  separate 
this  character  from  it,  we  should  find  that  noth- 
ing would  be  left.  Besides,  of  those  different 
compilations  of  fables  that  have  been  mentioned, 
only  one  set  professes  to  have  been  written  by 


*  Homil.  in  Joannem,  XX.  col.  132.  Ed.  1697.     Homil.  XVI. 
col.  108.     Homil.  XXII.  col.  124. 
VOL.   III.  36 


282  EVIDENCES  OF  THE 

an  author  called  Thomas  ;  and  no  copy  which 
bears  his  name  assumes  to  be  called  a  gospel. 
The  supposition,  that  the  ancient  Gospel  of 
Thomas  was  so  remarkable  a  book,  as  one  con- 
taining a  collection  of  stories  respecting  our 
Lord's  childhood  must  have  been  regarded  dur- 
ing the  first  three  centuries,  cannot  be  recon- 
ciled with  the  facts,  that  we  are  not  informed 
of  its  contents  by  any  ancient  writer ;  that  it 
is  not  quoted  under  that  name  by  any  ancient 
writer ;  that  those  who  mention  the  fables  do 
not  speak  of  the  Gospel  of  Thomas,  and  that 
those  who  mention  the  Gospel  of  Thomas  do 
not  speak  of  the  fables.* 


•  There  is  another  book  that  has  been  reckoned  among  apoc- 
ryphal writings,  "  The  Gospel  of  Nicodemus,"  so  called,  of 
which,  when  the  first  edition  of  this  work  was  published,  it  did 
not  seem  to  me  that  there  was  occasion  to  give  an  account  in 
relation  to  the  argument  before  us,  or  that  there  would  be  any 
propriety  in  doing  so  incidentally.  But  I  have  remarked  that 
one  of  the  most  noted  modern  champions  of  infidelity,  Strauss, 
in  treating  of  the  death  of  our  Lord  (and  elsewhere),  often  quotes 
it,  and  compares  its  statements  with  those  of  the  Evangelists  ; 
as  he  has  also  quoted,  in  like  manner,  the  Protevangelion  of 
James,  the  History  of  the  Nativity  of  Mary  (see  before,  p.  273), 
and  the  Gospels  of  the  Infancy. 

The  Gospel  of  Nicodemus  is  equally  fabulous  with  the  books 
just  mentioned.  The  Greek  original  has  been  published,  from 
a  collation  of  different  copies,  with  elaborate  notes,  by  Thilo. 
A  Latin  translation,  which  differs  from  it  in  many  particulars, 
may  be  found  in  Fabricius  and  Jones.     The  copies  of  this  book, 


GENUINENESS   OF  THE  GOSPELS.  283 


But,  it  may  be  asked,  were  the  fables  con- 
tained in  the  Protevangelion  and  the  Books  of 


like  those  of  others  of  the  same  class,  vary  much  from  one 
another. 

According  to  the  Greek  text,  a  person  who  announces  him- 
self as  Ananias,  a  Jew,  says,  that,  in  the  reign  of  Theodosius 
(his  blunders  in  chronology  are  such  as  to  leave  it  uncertain 
whether  he  meant  the  first  or  second  emperor  of  that  name), 
he  had  discovered  this  book  ;  that  it  was  written  originally  in 
Hebrew  by  Nicodemus,  and  that  he  had  translated  it  into  Greek. 

The  book  which  follows  this  proem  consists,  first,  of  an  ac- 
count of  the  trial  of  our  Lord  before  Pilate,  founded  on  the 
relations  of  the  Evangelists.  It  is  swelled  by  a  narrative  of  the 
appearance  before  Pilate  of  many  who  had  been  the  subjects  or 
witnesses  of  his  miracles,  —  miracles  recorded  in  the  Gospels, — 
who  are  introduced  as  testifying  in  his  favor.  Then,  after  an 
account  of  his  death  and  burial,  follows  a  marvellous  story  re- 
specting Joseph  of  Arimathea,  who  is  represented  as  having  been 
persecuted  by  the  Jews  on  account  of  the  honor  paid  by  him  to 
the  body  of  Jesus,  and  to  have  been  delivered  from  confinement 
by  Jesus  immediately  after  his  own  resurrection  ;  and  narratives 
of  individuals  supposed  to  have  witnessed  the  ascension  of  our 
Lord,  and  to  have  testified  to  this  fact  before  the  Jewish  San- 
hedrim. 

Here  it  seems  probable  that  the  book  originally  ended.  But  in 
some  manuscripts  a  conclusion  is  found,  which  consists  of  an 
account  of  our  Lord's  descent  to  Hades,  and  of  his  carrying 
away  thence  the  souls  of  the  just  who  had  died  before  his  time. 
It  is  given  in  the  form  of  a  deposition  before  the  Sanhedrim  of 
two  of  the  dead,  who  were  present  in  Hades  upon  the  occasion, 
which  deposition  they  themselves  committed  to  writing,  and  gave 
into  the  hands  of  Joseph  of  Arimathea  and  Nicodemus.  This 
concluding  legend  appears  to  have  been  the  immediate  source  of 
those  conceptions  respecting  our  Lord's  descent  to  Hell,  or  the 


284  EVIDENCES  OF  THE 

the  Infancy  ever  really   believed  ?      The  ques- 
tion falls  into  the  same  wide  class  with  many 


"  Harrowing  of  Hell,"  as  it  was  called  in  old  English  litera- 
ture, which  were  common  in  the  latter  part  of  the  Middle  Ages. 

Such  is  the  Gospel  of  Nicodemus.  It  is  not  named  by  any- 
Greek  or  Latin  father ;  nor  is  there  any  clear  proof  of  its  ex- 
istence till  a  very  late  period.  (See  the  Testimonia  et  CensurcB 
collected  by  Fabricius,  I.  214-237,  and  the  Prolegomena  of 
Thilo.)  There  would  be  no  greater  want  of  good-sense  in  quot- 
ing a  miracle-play  of  the  Middle  Ages  for  the  purpose  of  con- 
fronting its  representations  with  those  of  the  Evangelists,  than 
what  appears  in  quoting  for  this  end  the  Gospel  of  Nicodemus  ; 
or,  it  may  be  added,  in  thus  quoting  the  Protevangelion  of  James, 
the  History  of  the  Nativity,  and  the  Gospels  of  the  Infancy. 

But  as  this  book  has  been  mentioned,  it  may  be  well  to  enter 
into  some  further  explanation  respecting  it.  There  has  been,  as 
I  conceive,  a  great  confusion  of  ideas  concerning  it,  arising  from 
the  error  of  giving  it  the  additional  name  of  "  The  Acts  of 
Pilate."  This  error  appears  to  have  had  its  origin  from  two 
passages  in  the  History  of  the  Franks  by  Gregory  of  Tours, 
written  in  the  latter  part  of  the  sixth  century.  In  the  first  of 
these  passages  (Lib.  I.  cap.  21)  Gregory  makes  a  very  brief 
mention  of  the  imprisonment  of  Joseph  of  Arimathea  by  the 
chief-priests  (the  story  before  referred  to),  which  he  says  was 
related  in  the  Acts  of  Pilate  {Gesta  Pilaii),  sent  by  him  to 
the  Emperor  Tiberius ;  and  in  the  second  (Ibid.  c.  24)  he  men- 
tions these  Acts  agaip,  as  containing  information,  given  by 
Pilate  to  the  Emperor,  of  the  miracles,  death,  and  passion  of 
Jesus,  and  as  being  still  extant.  The  circumstance,  that  in 
the  first  passage  he  has  referred  to  the  persecution  of  Joseph 
of  Arimathea,  which  is  related  in  the  Gospel  of  Nicodemus, 
has  led  to  the  belief  that  this  work  is,  or  was  originally,  the 
same  book  with  the  Acts  of  Pilate.  But  the  argument  would 
in  no  case  avail  to  prove  this  identity,  since  the  author  of  the 


GENUINENESS   OF  THE  GOSPELS.         285 

Others,  to  all  which  a  common  answer  is  to  be 
given.      Were    the    legends    with   which    the 


Gospel  of  Nicodemus  may,  equally  with  Gregory,  have  derived 
the  story,  directly  or  indirectly,  from  some  book  which  bore  that 
title.  It  may  even  be  that  Gregory  himself  furnished  him  with 
the  germ  of  his  fable. 

Here  two  questions  arise :  —  What  was  the  original  meaning  of 
that  title,  "  The  Acts  of  Pilate"?  and  how  must  it  be  under- 
stood in  relation  to  the  subject  before  us  ? 

The  accounts  which  the  Roman  provincial  governors  were  ac- 
customed to  send  to  the  Emperor  of  their  own  doings  and  of  re- 
markable events  in  their  respective  provinces  were  sometimes 
called  Acts  (Acta  in  Latin,  or,  as  written  in  Greek  letters, "A/cra) . 
There  can  be  little  doubt  that  Pilate  did  send  home  such  an  ac- 
count relating  to  Jesus.  Rumors  concerning  him  must  have 
reached  Rome  ;  and  his  reputed  miracles  and  claims,  and  the 
circumstances  connected  with  his  history  and  death,  were  not  mat- 
ters to  be  passed  over  in  silence  in  the  reports  of  a  procurator  who 
was  under  the  eye  of  Tiberius. 

Accordingly,  Justin  and  Tertullian  in  their  Apologies  refer 
briefly  in  general  terms  to  the  account  of  Pilate,  which  Justin 
calls  his  Acts,  as  confirming  their  statements  respecting  the  mir- 
acles and  death  of  Jesus.  But  it  is  not  probable  that  either  of 
them  had  seen  an  authentic  copy  of  those  Acts,  or  that  such  copies 
were  ever  in  circulation.  They  either  spoke  from  private  infor- 
mation, direct  or  indirect ;  or,  perhaps,  inferred  from  the  nature  of 
the  case,  that  the  account  given  by  Pilate  must  tend  to  confirm 
their  own. 

In  the  beginning  of  the  fourth  century,  according  to  the  rela- 
tion of  Eusebius  (Hist.  Eccles.  Lib.  IX.  c.  5.  Conf.  Lib.  L  cc.  9, 
11),  during  the  persecution  under  Maximin,  pretended  Acts  of 
Pilate,  full  of  calumnies  against  our  Lord,  were  fabricated  and 
zealously  circulated. 

Afterward,  as  we  learn  from  Epiphanius  (Haeres.  L.  0pp.  I. 
420),  there  were  extant  among  Christians,  in  the  fourth  century, 


286  EVIDENCES   OF  THE 

whole    history   of  Christendom    was    swarming 
from  the  fourth  century  to  the  fifteenth  really 


other  spurious  Acts  of  Pilate,  which  were  appealed  to  by  certain 
heretics,  in  proof  that  our  Lord  suffered  on  the  eighth  of  the 
Calends  of  April,  the  anniversary  of  which  day  they  commemo- 
rated. Epiphanius  says  (but  whether  truly  or  not  may  be  a 
question)  that  he  had  seen  copies  of  those  Acts  giving  a  different 
date.  The  author  of  a  Homily  ascribed  to  Chrysostom  (Chrysos- 
tomi  0pp.  V.  942.  Ed.  Savil.)  says  that  the  day  of  our  Lord's 
death  was  known  from  the  Acts  of  Pilate  to  be  the  eighth  of  the 
Calends  of  April.  The  same  date  is  also  found  in  the  Gospel  of 
Nicodemus. 

This  is  the  sum  of  all  the  information  concerning  any  real  or 
pretended  Acts  of  Pilate  furnished  by  all  the  writers  before 
Gregory  of  Tours. 

No  one  can  be  supposed  to  imagine  that  the  Gospel  of  Nico- 
demus is  either  the  authentic  Acts  of  Pilate  referred  to  by  Justin 
and  TertuUian,  or  those  spurious  Acts  which  were  put  into  circu- 
lation during  the  persecution  under  Maximin.  It  follows,  that 
those  who  believe  the  Gospel  to  be  the  same  book  with  the  Acts 
must  believe  it  to  be  the  Acts  of  which  Epiphanius  speaks,  of  the 
contents  of  which  we  know  nothing,  except  that  they  specified  a 
particular  day  as  that  of  our  Lord's  death. 

But  this  belief  must  be  entertained  in  opposition  to  the  clear 
and  decisive  evidence  furnished  by  the  book  itself. 

The  Greek  Gospel  published  by  Thilo  begins  with  a  statement 
that  the  Hebrew  original  was  found  and  translated  into  Greek  in 
the  seventeenth  year  of  Theodosius,  the  first  or  second  of  that 
name.  At  the  end  of  the  Latin  version  edited  by  Fabricius,  The- 
odosius the  Great  is  said  to  have  discovered  it  in  the  Prsetorium  of 
Pilate  at  Jerusalem,  which  extraordinary  story  shows  that  the 
times  of  Theodosius  must  have  been  to  the  author  of  this  version 
a  fabulous  age.  No  copy  of  the  work  assigns  an  earlier  date  for 
its  discovery. 

But  no  one  will  credit  the  fable  of  a  Hebrew  original  of  the 


GENUINENESS  OF  THE  GOSPELS.         287 

believed  ?  How  was  it  with  the  mythology 
and  marvels  of  Greek  and  Roman  Paganism, 
interwoven  as  they  were  with  the  religious  sen- 
book.  The  Greek  text  is  the  original ;  and  this,  it  appears, 
claims  for  itself  no  higher  antiquity  than  the  end  of  the  fourth 
century  or  the  beginning  of  the  fifth.  It  is  probably  of  much 
later  date.  But  on  its  own  showing  it  could  not  have  been  the 
book  quoted,  as  Epiphanius  reports,  under  the  name  of  the  Acts 
of  Pilate,  by  heretics  in  the  fourth  century. 

The  character  of  the  Gospel  of  Nicodemus  is  such  as  to  render 
the  supposition  utterly  incredible,  that  any  one  could  have  put  it 
forth  under  the  name  of  the  Acts  of  Pilate,  that  title  being  under- 
stood, as  it  undoubtedly  was  during  the  first  four  centuries,  to  de- 
note an  ofllcial  account  of  his  doings  concerning  Jesus  sent  by 
Pilate  to  the  Emperor.  It  has  nothing  of  the  nature  or  form  of 
an  official  communication.  It  is  a  legendary  fable.  There  is  no 
inscription  to  Tiberius,  nor  any  address  to  him  throughout  the  book. 

Nor  is  it  pretended  in  the  book  itself  that  Pilate  was  its  author. 
According  to  its  own  statement,  it  was  composed  by  Nicodemus. 
In  the  Greek  copies,  there  is  no  mention  of  Pilate  as  having  any 
thing  to  do  with  it.  Nor  does  it  appear  that  the  title,  Acts  of 
Pilate,  was  given  it  in  any  manuscript,  Greek  or  Latin.  In 
an  addition  made  in  Latin  copies  (Thilo,  p.  788),  it  is  said 
that  Pilate,  having  been  informed  by  Joseph  of  Arimathea  and 
Nicodemus  of  all  that  passed  in  the  Jewish  Sanhedrim,  "  wrote 
all  which  had  been  done  and  said  by  the  Jews  concerning  Jesus 
{omnia  quce  gesta  et  dicta  sunt  de  Jesu  a  Judais),  and  put  all  the 
words  in  the  public  books  of  his  PrEetorium."  This  story,  and 
the  words  "  omnia  quae  gesta,''  may  perhaps  have  countenanced 
the  error  of  calling  it  the  Acts  of  Pilate,  Gcsta  Pilati.  But  the 
only  title  which  could  with  any  plausibility  be  derived  from 
the  passage  would  be  "  Acts  of  the  Jews,"  Gesta  Judceorum, 
meaning,  in  a  sense  of  the  word  Gesta  familiar  in  the  Middle 
Ages,  "Deeds  (or  Doings)  of  the  Jews."  — Ao^e  to  2d  Edi- 
tion, 1847. 


288  EVIDENCES  OF  THE 

timents  and  rites  and  daily  usages  of  the  most 
enlightened  nations  of  antiquity  ?  Had  the 
Egyptians  a  true  faith  that  a  particular  bull 
was  their  god  Apis  ?  Did  they  believe  in  the 
divinity  of  the  Crocodile  and  the  Ibis  ?  What 
was  their  state  of  mind  in  respect  to  their  other 
gods,  —  qualia  demens  JEgyptus  portenta  cole- 
hat,  —  with  all  the  strange  and  disgusting  his- 
tories attached  to  them  ?  How  has  it  been 
with  the  Hindus,  one  of  the  few  nations  out 
of  the  European  family  which  have  approach- 
ed to  European  intelligence  ?  Have  they  be- 
lieved or  not  the  enormous  fables  —  that  even 
a  healthy  imagination  shrinks  from  —  which 
are  reported  as  true  in  their  sacred  books  ? 
How  much  of  the  history  of  human  opinions 
on  all  the  higher  subjects  of  thought  is  a  his- 
tory of  human  errors,  —  often  of  errors  the 
most  repulsive  to  reason,  yet  widely  prevail- 
ing, and  obstinately  maintained  from  century 
to  century.  Have  not  those  errors  been  be- 
lieved ? 

The  general  answer  to  be  given  to  these 
questions  embraces  the  particular  reply  to  the 
inquiry  by  which  they  were  suggested,  re- 
specting the  fables  of  the  Protevangelion  and 
of  the  Books  of  the  Infancy.  Throughout  the 
history  of  mankind,  we  find,  as  regards  both 


^  GENUINENESS  OF  THE  GOSPELS.         289 

facts  and  doctrines,  the  broadest  exhibitions  of 
credulity,  which,  if  the  delusion  have  passed 
away,  or  if  we  are  out  of  the  sphere  of  its  in- 
fluence, we  can  hardly  help  regarding  as  mon- 
strous and  unnatural,  till  we  recollect  how 
prevalent  they  have  been,  and  consequently  how 
consistent  with  our  common  nature.  There 
are  other  avenues,  more  trodden  than  the  nar- 
row way  of  reason,  by  which  opinions  enter 
the  mind.  What  impresses  the  imagination, 
affects  the  feelings,  and  is  blended  with  habit- 
ual associations,  is  received  by  the  generality 
as  true.  Fables  however  absurd,  conceptions 
however  irrational,  even  unmeaning  forms  of 
words,  which  have  been  early  presented  to  the 
mind,  and  with  which  it  has  been  long  con- 
versant, make  as  vivid  an  impression  upon  it 
as  realities,  and  assume  their  character.  No 
opinions  inhere  more  strongly  than  those  about 
which  the  reason  is  not  exercised ;  for  they  are 
unassailable  by  argument.  It  would  be  well 
to  have  different  words  to  distinguish  between 
the  two  different  states  of  mind,  in  the  one 
of  which  we  receive  conceptions  as  true  with- 
out reasoning,  while  in  the  other  our  assent 
is  given  through  an  exercise  of  judgment.  The 
term  to  credit  is  now  used  in  one  of  its  signifi- 
cations merely   as  synonymous  with   the    term 

VOL.  III.  37 


290  EVIDENCES   OF  THE  • 

to  believe.  We  might  confine  the  use  of  the 
former  term  to  denoting  the  first  kind  of  as- 
sent, assent  without  the  exercise  of  the  under- 
standing, and  employ  the  latter  only  to  signify  a 
faith  that  relies  on  reason.  Using  the  words 
in  these  senses,  we  might  say  that  the  mass 
of  errors  which  have  been  credited  bears  a  vast 
disproportion  to  the  amount  of  truths  which 
have  been  believed.  Nor  shall  we  find  it  hard 
to  conceive,  nor  regard  it  as  a  very  extraordi- 
nary fact,  that  the  fables  respecting  the  moth- 
er of  our  Lord  and  our  Lord  himself  have  been 
credited,  as  well  as  the  doctrine  of  transub- 
stantiation.  Undoubtedly  the  world  has  grown 
wiser;  or  rather,  a  small  portion  of  the  world 
has  grown  wiser;  and  we  may  hope  that  the 
light  will  become  less  troubled,  steadier,  and 
brighter,  and  spread  itself  more  widely.  Ali- 
ud  ex  alio  clarescet.  Res  accendent  lumina 
rebus. 

From  what  has  appeared  in  this  Chapter,  it 
it  is  evident  that  the  Gnostics  did  not  oppose  to 
the  four  Gospels  any  other  history  of  Christ's 
ministry ;  or,  to  state  the  conclusion  in  more 
general  terms,  it  is  evident,  that,  during  the 
first  three  centuries,  no  history  of  Christ's  min- 
istry  at   variance   with   the   four   Gospels   was 


GENUINENESS  OF   THE  GOSPELS.  291 

in  existence.  The  history  of  his  ministry,  such 
as  it  is  contained  in  them,  or  in  some  one  of 
them,  served  as  a  common  basis  for  the  opinions 
of  all  Christians,  both  catholic  and  heretical. 

If  the  Gospel  of  the  Hebrews,  in  its  uncor- 
rupted  state,  was,  as  we  have  seen  reason  to 
believe,  the  Gospel  of  Matthew,  then  there  is 
no  probability  that  any  work  besides  those  of 
the  Evangelists,  professing  to  be  an  original 
history  of  our  Lord's  ministry,  was  ever  in  cir- 
culation after  the  appearance  of  the  first  three 
Gospels,  —  somewhere,  probably,  about  the 
year  65."^  Luke  mentions  imperfect  accounts 
which  preceded  his  own.  But,  after  the  ap- 
pearance of  the  first  three  Gospels,  though 
the  copies  of  such  accounts  might  not  be  de- 
stroyed, they  would  cease  to  be  multiplied 
and  circulated.  We  accordingly  find  no  trace 
of  their  existence  subsequent  to  the  notice  of 
them  by  Luke. 

It  may  seem  again  as  if  nothing  further 
were  to  be  said.  But,  in  order  to  exhaust  the 
general  subject  we  are  considering,  a  few  more 
remarks  remain  to  be  made  concerning  some 
supposed    gospels,    formerly    mentioned,    which 

*  See  Vol.  I.  pp.  clxxxviii,  clxxxix. 


292  EVIDENCES   OF  THE 

Eichhorn  maintains  to  have  been  in  common  use 
during  the  second  century  previously  to  the  use 
of  the  catholic  Gospels,  or  even  to  the  ex- 
istence of  the  latter  in  their  present  state.* 
I  have  already  had  occasion  to  take  notice 
of  all  the  titles  which  he  enumerates  except 
two.  These  two,  to  which  we  will  now  at- 
tend, are  "  gospels  used  by  Tatian  in  compos- 
ing his  Diatessaron  "  and  "  The  Gospel  of  Ce- 
rinthus."  f 

Tatian,  the  disciple  of  Justin  Martyr,  and 
the  contemporary  of  Irenseus,  became  an  as- 
cetic, and  a  Gnostic  of  the  Valentinian  school. 
Respecting  his  Diatessaron,  Theodoret,  as  we 
have  formerly  remarked,!  speaks  of  his  hav- 
ing found  two  hundred  copies  of  it  among  the 
Christians  of  his  diocese,  which  he  removed, 
and  supplied  their  place  by  copies  of  the  Gos- 
pels. He  says,  —  "  Tatian  put  together  what 
is  called  '  The  Gospel  out  of  the  Four  ' "  (that 
is,  a  gospel  composed  out  of  the  four  Gospels, 
a  Diatessaron),  "  cutting  away  the  genealogies, 
and  all  else  which  shows  that  the   Lord  was 

*  See  Vol.  I.  pp.  98  -  100.     Comp.  p.  9,  seqq. 
f  "  Cerinth's  Evangelium."    Eichhorii's  Einleit.  in  das  N.  T., 
I.  107. 
%  See  Vol.  I.  p.  53. 


GENUINENESS  OF  THE  GOSPELS.  293 

born  of  the  race  of  David  according  to  the 
flesh.  And  this  book  is  used,  not  only  by 
those  of  his  sect,  but  by  those  who  adhere  to 
the  doctrines  of  the  Apostles  ;  they  not  know- 
ing the  fraud  in  its  composition,  but  using  it,  in 
their  simplicity,  as  a  compendious  book."  *  It 
is  evident  that  Theodoret,  with  the  book  be- 
fore his  eyes,  regarded  it  as  a  history  of  Christ 
compiled  from  the  four  Gospels  ;  nor  does  he 
object  any  thing  to  it  but  the  omissions  which 
he  specifies.  Eusebius  gives  the  same  account 
of  the  composition  of  the  book  from  the  four 
Gospels ;  remarking  in  connection,  that  the 
Encratites,  of  which  sect,  he  says,  Tatian  was 
the  founder,  used  the  Gospels.f  But,  in  oppo- 
sition to  all  testimony  and  probability,  it  was 
fancied  by  Eichhorn  that  Tatian  did  not  use 
our  present  four  Gospels,  but  four  others  very 
like  them  ;  |  —  so  like  them,  it  appears,  that 
they  were  mistaken  for  them.  There  is  not  a 
sufficient  show  of  argument  in  support  of  this 
conjecture  to  admit  of  any  particular  confuta- 
tion. It  may  be  worth  while  to  discuss  it, 
when   the    supposition    can    be    rendered    plau- 


*  Haeret.  Fab.  Lib.  L  n.  20.  0pp.  IV.  208. 

t  Hist.  Eccles.  Lib.  IV.  c.  29. 

X  Einleit.  in  das  N.  T.,  I.  110-113. 


294  EVIDENCES   OF  THE 

sible,  that,  in  the  time  of  Irenaeus,  simulta- 
neously with  our  four  Gospels,  four  other  gos- 
pels existed  very  like  them,  but  not  the  same.* 

The  Diatessaron  of  Tatian,  then,  is  one 
among  the  abundant  proofs  of  the  use  which 
the  theosophic  Gnostics  made  of  the  four  Gos- 

*  "  Tatian's  Gospel,"  says  Eichhorn,  *'  was  called  by  many 
the  Gospel  of  the  Hebrews  "  ;  and  he  asks,  —  "  Whence  could 
this  name  have  arisen,  except  from  the  circumstance  that  that 
gospel  served  for  its  basis?  "  The  only  authority  for  his  asser- 
tion is  a  passage  of  Epiphanius. 

Epiphanius,  as  his  text  now  stands,  says  (Heeres.  XL VI.  §  1. 
0pp.  I.  391),  —  "  From  Tatian  those  who  are  called  Encratites 
derive  their  origin,  partaking  of  the  same  venom;  and  it  is  said 
that '  The  Gospel  out  of  the  Four,'  which  some  call  '  The  Gos- 
pel according  to  the  Hebrews,'  was  made  by  him."  But  there 
can  be  no  doubt  that  the  Diatessaron  of  Tatian  and  the  Gospel 
of  the  Hebrews  were  very  different  books  ;  and  the  supposition, 
that  the  Hebrew  Gospel  of  the  Jewish  Christians  was  written  in 
Greek  by  a  Gnostic  toward  the  close  of  the  second  century,  is 
too  gross  an  absurdity  for  any  one  to  have  entertained.  Nor  is 
there  the  least  probability  that  the  title  of  "  The  Gospel  accord- 
ing to  the  Hebrews  "  was  ever  common  to  the  book  to  which  it 
properly  belonged  and  to  Tatian's  Diatessaron.  If  the  text  of 
Epiphanius  be  correct,  his  assertion  can  only  be  reckoned  as  one 
among  his  numberless  blunders.  But  it  seems  most  probable 
that  his  text  is  corrupt ;  and  that,  instead  of  Kara  'Efipaiovs,  "  ac- 
cording to  the  Hebrews,"  we  should  read  Kara  'Ey Kparlras,  "  ac- 
cording to  the  Encratites."  This  will  accord  with  his  speaking 
of  Tatian's  Diatessaron  in  immediate  connection  with  his  men- 
tion of  the  Encratites  as  deriving  their  origin  from  him.  They, 
of  course,  were  likely  to  make  particular  use  of  his  Diatessaron  ; 
and  this  therefore  might  naturally  be  called  by  some  "  The  Gos- 
pel according  to  the  Encratites." 


GENUINENESS  OF  THE  GOSPELS.  295 

pels,  and  of  the  authority  which  they  ascribed 
to  them. 

We  proceed  to  the  supposed  gospel  of  Ce- 
rinthus.  Eichhorn  quotes  concerning  this  two 
passages  from  Epiphanius,  who  is  his  sole  au- 
thority. 

That  writer,  in  his  account  of  the  Cerinthi- 
ans,  affirms  that  they  "  used  the  Gospel  of 
Matthew,  not  complete,  however,  but  in  part 
only  "  ;  *  and,  in  his  account  of  the  Ebionites, 
he  says  that  Cerinthus  used  the  same  Gospel 
of  Matthew  with  the  Ebionites,  except  that  he 
retained  the  genealogy  for  the  purpose  of  prov- 
ing from  it  that  Jesus  was  the  son  of  Joseph 
and  Mary.f 

Regarding  Epiphanius  as  a  trustworthy  writ- 
er, and  as  being  alone  a  sufficient  representa- 
tive of  Christian  antiquity,  Eichhorn  asserts 
that  "  it  is  undeniable  that  Christian  antiquity 
ascribed  to  Cerinthus  the  use  of  Matthew's 
Gospel,   but   with   a    shorter   text " ;  %   and  he 

*  Hares.  XXVHI.  §  5.  p.  113, 
t  Haeres.  XXX.  ^  14.  p.  138. 

X  Einleit.  in  das  N.  T.,  I.  110.  —  It  may  be  worth  while  here 
to  take  notice  of  what  we  might  call  an  extraordinary  oversight 
of  Eichhorn,  if  such  oversights  did  not  often  occur  in  the  works 
of  the  modern  theologians  of  Germany.  Cerinthus  is  repre- 
sented, by  all  the  ancient  writers  who  pretend  to  give  an  account 


296  EvroENCES  of  the 

infers  that  the  Gospel  of  Cerinthus  was  an 
earlier  gospel  than  that  of  Matthew,  that  is  to 
say,  the  Gospel  which  we  now  call  Matthew's 
in  a  jet  imperfect  state.* 

It  is  needless  to  inquire  by  what  process 
this  might  be  inferred  from  the  words  of  Epi- 
phanius,  supposing  him  to  be  a  writer  of  good 
authority.  As  we  have  formerly  seen,t  he  is 
entitled  to  no  credit  in  his  account  of  the  Ce- 
rinthians.  He  has  manufactured  a  sect,  to 
which,  ascribing  the  doctrines  of  the  Ebionites, 
he  has  likewise  ascribed  the  use  of  the  Gos- 
pel of  the  Ebionites. 

But  there  is  another  passage  of  Epiphanius, 


of  him,  as  teaching  that  Jesus  was  the  son  of  Joseph  and  Mary. 
But  Eichhorn,  after  quoting  his  authority,  Epiphanius,  to  this 
effect,  proceeds,  a  few  lines  after  (p.  108),  to  observe,  that,  as 
the  gospel  of  Cerinthus  had  the  genealogy  of  Jesus,  so  "it 
probably  had  also  the  whole  evangelium  infmiticE  (gospel  of  the 
infancy)  which  is  now  contained  in  the  first  two  chapters  of 
Matthew."  That  is  to  say,  Eichhorn  supposes,  that,  though 
Cerinthus  rejected  the  belief  of  the  miraculous  conception  of  our 
Lord,  he  received  the  account  of  it  as  authentic. 

It  is  by  conjectures  which  have  more  or  less  of  a  like  charac- 
ter, and  by  critics  equally  inconsiderate,  that  the  genuineness 
and  authenticity  of  the  Gospels  have  been  assailed  in  modern 
times  in  Germany.  Among  those  critics  I  know  of  none  who  is 
to  be  ranked  higher  than  Eichhorn  for  theological  knowledge, 
clearness  of  mind,  and  power  of  reasoning. 

*  Einleit.  in  das  N.  T.,  I.  109,  f  Vol.  II.  pp.  76  -  78. 


GENUINENESS  OF  THE  GOSPELS.  297 

which  Eichhorn  has  omitted  to  notice.  It  is 
in  his  account  of  the  Alogi.  Luke,  he  says, 
in  the  first  words  of  his  Gospel,  "  Since  many 
have  undertaken,"  that  is,  to  write  gospels, 
"  points  to  some  undertakers,  as  Cerinthus, 
Merinthus,  and  others."  *  He  had  before  told 
us  that  Cerinthus  and  his  followers  used  the 
Gospel  of  Matthew,  with  some  omissions.  He 
here  tells  us  that  Cerinthus  wrote  a  gospel  be- 
fore Luke  wrote  his.  Following  him,  there- 
fore, as  a  well-informed  and  credible  writer,  and 
putting  his  different  accounts  together,  we  must 
conclude  that  Cerinthus  was  the  original  com- 
poser of  Matthew's  Gospel.  Reasoning  after 
a  fashion  with  which  every  one  acquainted 
with  modern  German  theology  must  be  fa- 
miliar, we  might  go  on  to  infer,  as  highly 
probable,  that  Merinthus  was  the  author  of 
the  Gospel  of  Mark.  But  here  we  should  be 
met  by  a  difficulty,  arising  from  what  Epipha- 
nius  elsewhere  says,  that  he  did  not  know 
whether  Cerinthus  and  Merinthus  were  dif- 
ferent persons,  or  only  different  names  of  the 
same  person. f  But  the  existence  of  the  very 
early   gospel   of  Merinthus,    which,    I    believe, 

*  Hffires.  LI.  ^  7.  p.  428. 

t  Haeres.  XXVIH.  ^  8.  p.  115. 

VOL.  III.  38 


298  EVIDENCES  OF  THE 

no  one  has  yet  undertaken  to  patronize,  rests 
on  as  good  ground  as  that  of  the  gospel  of 
Cerinthus. 

In  pursuing  the  inquiry  concerning  the  sup- 
posed existence  of  Gnostic  gospels,  we  have 
enabled  ourselves  to  form  a  correct  judgment 
of  the  character  and  importance  of  all  those 
books  which  have  been  called  apocryphal  gos- 
pels, and  of  their  bearing  on  the  genuineness 
and  authenticity  of  those  four  books  which 
in  ancient  times  were  universally  recognized 
as  the  original  histories  of  Christ's  ministry, 
given  by  his  immediate  followers,  or  those 
who  derived  their  knowledge  from  them.  On 
the  subject  of  apocryphal  gospels  there  have 
been  vague  and  incorrect  notions,  that  have 
continued,  in  one  form  or  other,  down  to  our 
time,  among  those  who  have  been  disposed 
to  invalidate  the  authority  of  the  four  Gospels. 
They  cannot,  perhaps,  be  more  clearly  or  more 
briefly  explained  than  in  the  words  of  the 
Jew  Orobio,  in  his  celebrated  controversy  with 
Limborch  respecting  the  truth  of  Christianity. 
"  There  were,"  he  says,  "  besides  the  four  Gos- 
pels many  others,  some  of  which  are  referred 


I 


GENUINENESS  OF  THE  GOSPELS.  299 

to  bj  Jerome  *  and  other  fathers,  which  were 
the  foundation  of  diiferent  heresies.  Such 
were  the  gospel  to  the  Egyptians,  that  to  the 
Hebrews,  that  of  Thomas,  that  of  Bartholo- 
mew,t  that  of  the  Twelve  Apostles, t  that  of 
Basilides,  that  of  Harpocras,^  and  others  that 
it  would  be  superfluous  to  mention  ;  every  one 
of  which  had  its  adherents,  and  gave  occasion 
to  dispute.  All  these  gospels,  conflicting  with 
one  another  in  regard  to  the  truth  of  the  his- 
tory, were  in  the  course  of  time  and  by  the 
authority  of  councils  rejected ;  the  four  only 
being  admitted  in  Europe,  as  corresponding 
best  with  each  other."  ||      On   the   ground   of 

*  The  imperfect  and  eironeous  view  of  the  subject  taken  by 
Orobio  is  sufficiently  evident  from  this  reference  to  Jerome. 
Books  which  could  have  come  into  competition  with  the  four 
Gospels  must  have  been  very  conspicuous  books  long  before  the 
time  of  Jerome. 

f  This  title  is  first  mentioned  by  Jerome  in  his  Proem  to 
Matthew's  Gospel.  The  existence  of  any  book  answering  to  it 
is  doubtful. 

I  This  was  another  title  for  the  Gospel  of  the  Hebrews,  See 
before,  pp.  265,  266,  note. 

§  By  Harpocras  must,  it  would  seem,  be  meant  Carpocrates, 
and  Orobio  probably  had  in  mind  an  indistinct  recollection  of  the 
story  of  Epiphanius  (Hseres.  XXX.  §  14.  p.  138),  that  Carpo- 
crates used  the  Gospel  of  Matthew,  corrupted,  in  common  with 
the  Ebionites.  (See  Vol.  I.  p.  lii.  note.)  — Except  this  title,  and 
that  of  "  The  Gospel  of  Bartholomew,"  the  others  enumerated 
by  Orobio  have  been  already  remarked  upon. 

II  The  passage  is  quoted  by  Fabricius,  I.  146. 


300  EVIDENCES   OF  THE 

such  Statements  it  has  been  argued,  in  effect, 
that  there  were  originally  many  various  ac- 
counts of  Christ's  ministry,  differing  much  from 
one  another,  so  that  the  truth  was  altogether 
unsettled,  and  that  our  four  Gospels,  which 
had  no  particular  claim  to  credit,  obtained  gen- 
eral currency,  to  the  exclusion  of  other  works 
of  the  same  kind,  in  consequence  only  of  their 
finding  favor  with  the  prevalent  party  among 
Christians,  and  hence  being  sanctioned  by  the 
decrees  of  councils.  Respecting  this  supposi- 
tion, it  is  here  unnecessary  to  recur  to  that 
evidence  for  the  universal  reception  of  the  four 
Gospels  by  the  great  body  of  Christians  which 
shows  it  to  be  altogether  untenable.  In  the 
present  Chapter,  we  have  examined,  or  ad- 
verted to,  every  book,  real  or  supposed,  pass- 
ing under  the  name  of  a  gospel,  the  title  of 
which  is  mentioned  by  any  writer  before  Epi- 
phanius.  Among  them  are  the  Gospel  of  the 
Hebrews  and  the  Gospel  of  Marcion.  The 
existence  of  neither  of  these  books  can  weak- 
en the  proof  of  the  authority  and  general  re- 
ception of  the  four  Gospels.  But  it  would  be 
idle  to  suppose  that  any  other  of  those  which 
have  been  mentioned  was  brought  into  com- 
petition with  the  four  Gospels  as  a  different 
history  of  Christ's  ministry  ;  and  still  more  idle 


GENUINENESS  OF  THE  GOSPELS.         301 

to  suppose  this  of  any  book,  the  very  title  of 
which  is  not  mentioned  till  after  the  middle 
of  the  fourth  century.* 

The  main  purpose  of  our  inquiry  respecting 
the  Gnostics  has  been  to  determine  whether 
they  afford  evidence  for  the  genuineness  of  the 
Gospels.  That  they  do  afford  such  evidence 
has  abundantly  appeared.  But  something  re- 
mains  to   be    said.      In  the  next  Chapter  we 

*  A  degree  of  confusion  and  -  misapprehension  respecting  the 
subject  of  apocryphal  gospels  may  have  been  produced  by  the 
fact,  that  Fabricius  gives  an  account  of  such  gospels  under  fifty 
titles,  which,  as  the  same  book  sometimes  passed  under  two  or 
more  different  titles,  he  supposes  may  represent  about  forty 
books  (I.  335*,  note).  But  in  making  this  collection  he  has 
taken  a  very  wide  range.  He  has  included  writings  which  have 
no  claim  to  the  title  of  "  gospel,"  either  in  the  ancient  or  modem 
sense  of  the  word  ;  and  he  has  brought  his  catalogue  down  to 
the  year  1600,  mentioning  a  History  of  Christ  in  Persian,  pub- 
lished that  year  by  the  missionary  Jerome  Xavier,  for  the  benefit 
of  his  converts.  Many  of  the  titles  collected  by  him  rest  on  no 
good  authority.  Some  evidently  had  their  origin  in  ignorance 
and  misapprehension.  With  the  exception  of  those  which  have 
been  remarked  upon,  they  are  to  be  found  only  in  writers  from 
Epiphanius  downward.  Their  alphabetical  arrangement,  how- 
ever, tends,  at  first  view,  to  give  the  impression,  that  one  de- 
serves as  much  attention  as  another.  But,  of  the  works  men- 
tioned by  Fabricius,  all  that  can  with  any  reason  be  supposed  to 
have  been  extant  before  the  middle  of  the  third  century  have 
been  taken  notice  of  in  this  Chapter. 


302         GENUINENESS  OF  THE  GOSPELS. 

shall  conclude  with  bringing  into  one  view  the 
facts  already  adduced,  in  connection  with  others 
not  yet  adverted  to,  and  attending  to  the  rela- 
tions and  bearings  of  the  whole. 


CHAPTER   XIII. 

CONCLUDING    STATEMENT    OF   THE    EVIDENCE    FOR   THE    GENU- 
INENESS   OF    THE    GOSPELS    AFFORDED    BY   THE    GNOSTICS. 

The  facts  that  have  been  brought  forward 
show  in  what  manner  the  Gospels  were  re- 
garded by  the  Gnostics.  It  has  appeared  that 
the  theosophic  Gnostics  recognized  the  au- 
thority of  the  four  Gospels  in  common  with 
the  catholic  Christians,  while  the  Gospel  used 
by  the  Marcionites  was  essentially  the  same 
with  the  Gospel  of  Luke.  But  we  will  now 
review  those  facts  in  connection  with  some 
others  which  have  not  yet  been  stated,  and 
consider  more  particularly  what  inferences  may 
be  drawn  from  the  whole.  In  pursuing  the 
subject,  we  will  first  confine  our  attention  to 
the  Marcionites. 

An  unjustifiable  application  of  a  principle 
common  to  all  the  Gnostics  *  led  the  Mar- 
cionites to  reject  certain  passages  from  the  text 
of  Luke,  and  to  decline  any  appeal  to  the  au- 

*  See  before,  p.  206,  seqq. 


304  EVIDENCES   OF  THE 

thority  of  the  three  remaining  Gospels.  But 
the  very  principle  on  which  they  proceeded, 
that  the  Apostles  and  their  followers  were  under 
the  influence  of  Jewish  prejudices,  implies  that 
they  recognized  the  genuineness  of  the  passa- 
ges, and  of  the  Gospels,  which  they  rejected. 
It  may  be  further  remarked,  that  their  having 
recourse  to  the  mutilation  of  Luke's  Gospel 
shows  that  no  other  history  of  Christ's  min- 
istry existed  more  favorable  to  their  doctrines  ; 
—  that,  in  the  first  half  of  the  second  century, 
when  Marcion  lived,  there  was  no  Gnostic  gos- 
pel in  being,  to  which  he  could  appeal. 

The  fact,  that  Marcion's  gospel  was  founded 
on  that  of  Luke,  proves  the  existence  and  au- 
thority of  Luke's  Gospel  at  the  time  when 
Marcion  lived.  We  may,  therefore,  recur  to 
the  reasoning  which  has  before  been  used,  to 
show  that  the  existence  and  authority  of  any 
one  of  the  four  Gospels  at  a  particular  period 
implies  the  contemporaneous  existence  and  au- 
thority of  the  other  three.*  In  proving  their 
genuineness,  if  that  reasoning  be  correct,  they 
may  be  regarded  as  virtually  one  book.  Had 
any  other  of  the  Gospels  not  existed  together 
with  that  of  Luke,  at  the  commencement   of 

*  See  Vol.  I.  pp.  183-190. 


GENUINENESS  OF  THE  GOSPELS.  305 

the  second  century,  or  had  it  not  then  been  re- 
garded as  of  authority,  it  never  could  afterward 
have  attained  to  the  high  estimation  in  which 
Luke's  Gospel  was  held. 

We  will  next  attend  to  the  broad  distinction 
that  was  made  between  the  Marcionites  and 
the  theosophic  Gnostics  in  consequence  of  the 
fact,  that  the  Marcionites  admitted  as  of  au- 
thority among  the  Gospels  only  their  mutilated 
copy  of  Luke.  On  this  ground  Irenaeus,  as 
we  have  seen,*  declined  controverting  their 
opinions  in  connection  with  those  of  the  other 
Gnostics ;  and  Tertullian,  in  confuting  them, 
expressly  limited  himself  to  the  use  of  their 
own  gospel.  The  distinction  was,  that  the 
Marcionites  recognized  only  the  authority  of 
their  own  gospel ;  while  the  other  Gnostics, 
as  is  thus  testified  by  their  opponents,  appealed 
equally  with  the  catholic  Christians  to  the  au- 
thority of  all  the  four  Gospels. 

This  is  the  concession  of  their  opponents. 
But  we  will  go  on,  and  see  what  further  evi- 
dence of  the  fact  exists. 

I  have  repeatedly  had  occasion  to  refer  to 
the  letter  of  Ptolemy,  the  Valentinian,  to  Flora, 


*  Vol.  II.  pp.  94,  95. 
39 


306  EVIDENCES   OF  THE 

in  which  he  gives  an  account  of  his  doctrines 
respecting  the  Supreme  Being  and  the  Crea- 
tor. In  this  letter  he  says,  that  he  shall  prove 
what  he  asserts  "  by  the  words  of  the  Saviour, 
which  only  are  an  infallible  guide  to  the  ap- 
prehension of  the  truth  "  ;  and  he  accordingly 
confirms  his  positions  throughout  by  quotations 
from  the  Gospels.  In  the  conclusion  of  the 
letter,  he  introduces  the  mention  of  those  apos- 
tolic traditions  to  which  the  Gnostics  appeal- 
ed, but  speaks  of  them  only  as  an  additional 
and  subordinate  means  of  knowledge.  He 
promises  to  give  further  explanations  founded 
"  on  the  doctrine  of  the  Apostles  received  by 
tradition ;  every  thing  at  the  same  time  be- 
ing confirmed  by  the  teaching  of  the  Saviour, 
which  must  be  taken  as  the  standard."  Herac- 
leon,  another  Valentinian,  who  lived  in  the 
second  century,  and  was  highly  esteemed,  as 
we  are  told,  by  those  of  his  own  sect,  wrote 
a  commentary  on  the  Gospel  of  John,  which 
is  often  quoted  by  Origen.  The  views  of  the 
Basilidians  respecting  the  Gospels  may  be  in- 
ferred from  the  fact,  that  Basilides  himself 
wrote  a  commentary  on  the  Gospels.*  Tatian, 
who   was   a   Gnostic,   composed,    as   we    have 

*  See  before^  pp.  237-239. 


GENUINENESS  OF  THE  GOSPELS.         307 

seen,  a  Harmony  of  the  Gospels.*  And  in  the 
Doctrina  Orientalis,  the  Gnostic  writer  appeals 
to  the  Gospels  to  countenance  his  opinions  as 
freely  as  a  catholic  Christian  might  have  done, 
and  appeals  to  no  other  history  of  Christ.  It  is 
throughout  to  be  kept  in  mind,  that  the  theo- 
sophic  Gnostics,  while  they  thus  used  the  Gos- 
pels, used  no  other  books  of  the  same  class  as  of 
like  authority ;  that  they  did  not,  any  more  than 
the  catholic  Christians,  bring  any  other  history 
of  Christ's  ministry  into  competition  with  them. 

In  treating  of  the  doctrines  of  the  theosophic 
Gnostics  I  have  incidentally  given  examples  of 
the  use  made  by  them  of  passages  of  the  Gos- 
pels. Many  more  might  be  adduced.  But  a 
particular  enumeration  of  passages  to  which 
they  appealed  is  unnecessary,  since  their  use  of 
the  Gospels  is  fully  acknowledged  by  their  cath- 
olic opponents. 

Irenseus  begins  his  work  by  charging  them 
with  deceiving  men  by  "corrupting  the  oracles 
of  the  Lord,  being  evil  interpreters  of  what  has 
been  well  spoken."!  He  often  remarks  on  their 
ingenuity  in  perverting  the  Scriptures.  Speak- 
ing particularly  of  the  Valentinians,  he  says,  — 

*  See  before,  pp.  292-295.  f  Lib.  L  Prsefat.  ^  1.  p.  2. 


308  EVIDENCES   OF   THE 

"  You  see  the  method  they  use  to  deceive  them- 
selves, wresting  the  Scriptures  and  endeavouring 
to  find  support  in  them  for  their  fictions."  *  He 
gives  connectedly  many  passages  from  the  Gos- 
pels, which  they  applied  to  the  proof  of  their 
doctrines,  and  afterwards  confutes  their  interpre- 
tations.! He  speaks  of  them  as  making  use  of 
every  part  of  the  Gospel  of  John. J  I  have 
already  quoted  a  passage  in  which  he  says  that 
those  heretics,  in  putting  together  detached  pas- 
sages of  Scripture,  resemble  one  who  should 
separate  the  stones  of  a  mosaic  representing  a 
king,  and  employ  them  to  make  the  figure  of  a 
fox  or  a  dog ;  ^  and  another  in  which  he  com- 
pares their  abundant  use  of  Scripture  language 
to  the  labor  of  one  stringing  together  verses  of 
Homer  to  form  a  cento.  ||  "  There  is  such  as- 
surance," he  says,  "concerning  the  Gospels, 
that  the  heretics  themselves  bear  testimony  to 
them,    and    every   one  of  them   endeavours   to 

prove    his    doctrine    from  them As, 

then,  those  who  oppose  us  bear  testimony  in  our 
favor,  and  use  these  Gospels,  it  follows  that  what 
we  have  shown  that  the  Gospels  teach  is  estab- 
lished and  true."  1[ 

*  Lib.  I.  c.  9.  ^  1.  p.  43.  f  Lib.  L  capp.  8,  9.  pp.  35-47. 

X  Lib.  in.  c.  11.  ^  7.  p.  190.      §  Lib.  I.  c.  8.  §  1.  p.  36. 
II  Lib.  I.  c.  9.  ^  4.  pp.  4.'),  46.     TertuUian  uses  the  same  cora- 
paiistKi,  Dc  Prescript.  ITa'rctir.  c.  39.  p,  216. 
n   Lib.  III.  c.  11.  s^7.  pp.  lHi>,  190. 


GENUINENESS   OF  THE  GOSPELS.  309 

"  There  could  not  be  heresies,"  says  Tertul- 
lian,  "  if  the  Scriptures  were  incapable  of  being 
misinterpreted."  *  "  They  could  not  venture  to 
show  themselves  without  some  pretence  from 
the  Scriptures."!  "The  heretics  plead  their 
cause  from  the  Scriptures,  and  draw  their  argu- 
ments from  the  Scriptures.  Whence,  indeed, 
could  they  draw  their  arguments  concerning  the 
subjects  of  faith,  except  from  the  books  of  the 
faith  ?  "  t 

It  appears,  then,  that  the  theosophic  Gnostics 
abundantly  appealed  to  the  Scriptures,  and  par- 
ticularly to  the  Gospels,  in  support  of  their 
opinions.  The  passages  I  have  quoted,  and 
others  of  a  similar  character,  are  not  to  be  con- 
sidered as  mere  common  testimony  to  this  fact. 
They  are  the  admissions  of  their  opponents. 
So  far  as  there  was  any  ground  for  it,  the 
catholic  Christians  were  eager  to  charge  the 
Gnostics  with  mutilating,  rejecting,  and  under- 
valuing the  writings  of  the  New  Testament. 
In  the  case  of  the  Marcionites,  this  accusation 
was  strongly  urged.  But,  as  respects  the  theo- 
sophic Gnostics,  we  have  the  testimony  of  the 
earliest  and  most  elaborate  writers  against  them, 

*  De  Resurrectione  Carnis,  c.  40.  p.  349. 

t  Ibid.  c.  63.  p.  365. 

X  De  Praescript.  Haeret.  c.  14.  p.  207. 


310  EVIDENCES  OF  THE 

of  Irenaeus  and  Tertullian,  that  they  made  use 
of  the  Gospels,  and  other  writings  of  the  New 
Testament,  and  constantly  appealed  to  them  for 
proof  of  their  doctrines,  as  freely  as  the  catho- 
lic Christians. 

The  Marcionites  made  similar  use  of  those 
portions  of  the  New  Testament  the  authority 
of  which  they  admitted.  This  is  abundantly 
apparent  from  Tertullian's  whole  controversy 
with  them ;  and  might  be  inferred  simply  from 
the  fact  that  they  did  acknowledge  the  authority 
of  those  portions  which  they  retained. 

But  the  evidence  which  has  been  brought 
forward  of  the  facts  just  stated,  however  con- 
clusive, is  not,  perhaps,  the  most  striking  that 
may  be  adduced.  There  is  a  remarkable  work 
of  Tertullian,  entitled  "  De  Praescriptione  Hae- 
reticorum."  The  word  prcesaiptio,  used  in  this 
title,  was  a  forensic  term,  denoting  an  exception 
taken  by  a  defendant  to  the  plaintiff's  right  to 
maintain  an  action.  The  title  of  Tertullian's 
work  might  be  rendered  "  On  the  Plea  in  Bar 
against  the  Heretics."  Its  purpose  is  to  show 
that  the  heretics  should  not  be  allowed  to  argue 
their  cause  from  the  Scriptures.  The  position 
which  he  maintains  is,  —  That  the  history  of  the 
catholic  doctrine   and   of  the  doctrines   of  the 


GENUINENESS  OF  THE  GOSPELS.         311 

heretics  alone  deteimines  the  former  to  be  true 
and  the  latter  false,  without  further  inquiry. 
His  argument  proceeds  as  follows. 

Christ,  whoever  he  was,  of  whatever  God  he 
was  the  son,  whatever  was  the  substance  of  his 
divine  and  of  his  human  nature,  whatever  faith 
he  taught,  whatever  rewards  he  promised,  de- 
clared while  on  earth  what  he  was,  what  he 
had  been,  the  will  of  his  Father,  and  the  duty 
of  man,  either  publicly  to  the  people,  or  apart 
to  his  disciples.  He  sent  forth  his  Apostles, 
who  had  been  chosen  by  him  for  this  purpose, 
to  preach  to  the  world  the  same  doctrine  which 
he  had  taught.  They  founded  churches  in 
every  city  where  they  went,  from  which  other 
churches  had  been  and  were  still  derived. 
These  all  traced  back  their  origin  to  the  Apos- 
tles, and  formed  one  great  Apostolic  church, 
held  together  in  brotherhood  by  the  reception 
of  the  same  religion  handed  down  to  all. 

But  if  Christ  gave  authority  to  his  Apostles 
to  preach  his  religion,  no  other  expositors  of  it 
are  to  be  listened  to.  What  they  preached  is 
what  he  revealed ;  and  in  order  to  ascertain 
what  they  preached,  we  must  recur  to  the 
churches  which  they  founded,  and  instructed, 
orally  and  by  their  epistles.  Whatever  doctrine 
is  held  by  those    churches  is  true,   as   derived 


312  EVIDENCES  OF  THE 

from  the  Apostles,  and  through  them  from 
Christ,  and  through  Christ  from  God.  Every 
other  doctrine  is  false.  But  we,  says  Tertullian, 
hold  communion  with  the  Apostolic  churches, 
there  is  no  difference  of  belief  between  us  and 
them ;  and  this  is  the  proof  of  the  truth  of  our 
doctrines.* 

The  argument  stated  in  its  most  concise  form, 
it  will  be  perceived,  is  this  :  That  it  was  matter 
of  history  that  the  catholic  churches  had,  from 
the  days  of  the  Apostles,  held  the  same  doc- 
trines as  they  did  in  the  time  of  Tertullian  ; 
and  that  these  doctrines,  therefore,  were  the 
original  doctrines  of  the  religion  derived  through 
the  Apostles  from  Christ.  It  was  equally  a  mat- 
ter of  history,  he  continues,  that  the  founders  of 
the  principal  heretical  sects,  Valentinus  and  Mar- 
cion,  for  instance,  had  lived  after  the  times  of 
the  Apostles,  and  had  introduced  new  doctrines 
not  before  held  by  the  churches.  If  their  doc- 
trines were  true,  the  churches  had  before  been 
in  error  from  the  beginning.  "  Thousands  of 
thousands  had  been  baptized  into  a  false  relig- 
ion." "  Let  them  show  me,"  says  Tertullian, 
"  by  what  authority  they  have  come   forward. 

Let  them  prove  themselves  to  be  new 

Apostles ;  let  them  affirm  that  Christ  has  again 

*  Capp.  20,  21.  pp.  208,  209. 


GENUINENESS  OF  THE  GOSPELS.         313 

descended,  has  again  taught,  has  again  been 
crucified,  has  again  died,  and  has  risen  again. 
It  was  thus  that  he  formed  his  Apostles,  giving 
them,  moreover,  the  power  of  working  the  same 
miracles  which  he  did.  I  wish  them  to  produce 
their  miracles."  * 

The  main  scope  of  the  reasoning  of  Tertul- 
lian  is  apparent.  It  is,  he  maintains,  a  well- 
known  historical  fact,  that  the  catholic  doctrine, 
as  opposed  to  that  of  the  Gnostics,  has  been 
held  from  the  beginning  by  the  churches  which 
the  Apostles  founded,  and  by  all  other  churches 
in  communion  with  them.  This  fact  precludes 
the  necessity  of  any  further  argument  with  those 
heretics.  They  have  no  claim  to  be  heard  in 
appealing  to  the  Scriptures  in  support  of  their 
opinions. 

Tertullian  remarks  at  length  upon  the  various 
objections  which  were  made  to  his  argument  by 
different  individuals,  or  by  the  same  at  different 
times.  All  of  them,  it  may  be  observed,  are 
founded  on  passages  of  the  New  Testament. 
With  the  exception  of  the  last  to  be  here  men- 
tioned, they  have  already  been  spoken  of.  The 
Gnostics  sometimes  said  that  the  Apostles  did 
not   know   all    things ;  f      sometimes,    that  the 

*  Capp.  29,  30.  pp.  212,213. 
t  See  before,  pp.  206-208. 

VOL.    HI.  40 


314  EVIDENCES  OF  THE 

Apostles  had  a  public  and  a  private  doctrine,  and 
did  not  communicate  all  truths  openly  to  all ;  * 
and,  finally,  they  contended  that  the  catholic 
churches,  from  the  earliest  times,  had  fallen  into 
error  through  not  understanding  what  the  Apos- 
tles taught. 

It  is  not  necessary  to  dwell  on  the  answers 
of  Tertullian  to  these  objections.  His  main 
argument,  considering  the  early  period  when  it 
was  adduced,  and  its  application  as  against  the 
doctrines  of  the  Gnostics,  is,  evidently,  con- 
clusive. I  have  given  this  brief  account  of  it 
for  the  purpose  of  introducing  the  reason  which 
he  assigns  for  urging  it.  This  reason  is,  that  in 
the  controversy  between  the  catholic  Christians 
and  the  Gnostics,  when  the  Gnostics  were  al- 
lowed to  appeal  to  the  Scriptures  in  proof  of 
their  doctrines,  they  argued  so  plausibly  as  to 
leave  the  victory  uncertain  ;  to  make  converts  of 
some,  and  to  instil  doubts  into  others. 

"  We  come  then,"  he  says,  "  to  the  subject 
proposed."  "  Our  opponents  put  forward  the 
Scriptures,  and  their  boldness  has  an  immediate 
effect  upon  some.  In  the  first  encounter,  they 
fatigue  the  strong,  they  take  captive  the  weak, 
and  dismiss  others  with  doubts.  Here,  then,  I 
meet  them  at  the  onset ;  they  are  not  to  be  ad- 
mitted to  argue  from  the  Scriptures."  f 

*  See  before,  pp.  199-206.  f  Cap.  15.  p.  207. 


GENUINENESS  OF  THE  GOSPELS.         313 

"  Will  he  for  the  sake  of  whose  doubts  you 
engage  in  an  argument  from  the  Scriptures  be 
inclined  in  consequence  more  to  the  truth  or  to 
heresy?  When  he  sees  that  you  make  no 
advance,  that,  the  other  party  maintaining  his 
ground,  you  both  equally  deny  and  defend,  he 
will  surely  go  away  from  this  conflict  more 
uncertain  than  before,  and  ignorant  on  which 
side  the  heresy  lies."  * 

"  The  appeal,  therefore,  is  not  to  be  made  to 
the  Scriptures,  nor  is  the  decision  of  the  con- 
troversy to  be  rested  on  them ;  for  they  will 
afford  no  victory,  or  an  uncertain  one,  or  one  no 
better  than  uncertain.  Even  though  the  mu- 
tual appeal  to  Scripture  should  not  leave  each 
party  on  an  equality,!  yet  the  order  of  things 
demands  that  that  consideration  should  be  first 
brought  forward  which  is  the  sole  subject  of  the 
present  argument,  —  To  whom  does  the  faith 
[the  religion]  itself  belong?  Whose  are  the 
Scriptures  ?  From  whom,  and  through  whom, 
and  when,  and  to  whom,  was  the  instruction 
delivered,  by  which  men  are  made  Christians  ? 
For,  wherever  it  may  appear  that  the  true 
Christian  instruction  and  faith  are  to  be  found. 


*  Cap.  18.  p.  208. 

f  I  adopt  the  reading,  "  ut  utramque  partem  parem  sisteret." 


316  EVIDENCES   OF  THE 

there  will  be  the  true  Scriptures,  and  their  true 
exposition,  and  all  true  Christian  traditions."  * 

Thus  it  appears,  that,  whatever  difficulties 
the  theosophic  Gnostics  found  in  reconciling 
their  doctrines  with  the  New  Testament,  they 
recognized  the  necessity  of  doing  so ;  that  they 
were  ready  to  meet  their  opponents  on  this 
ground ;  that  they  furnished  plausible  explana- 
tions of  those  difficulties,  and  drew  from  the 
New  Testament  plausible  arguments  in  their 
own  favor.  But  this  is  but  a  partial  statement. 
The  theosophic  Gnostics  appealed  to  the  Gos- 
pels as  freely  and  as  confidently  as  did  the  cath- 
olic Christians ;  contending,  that  they  alone  had 
the  true  key  to  their  meaning,  and  that  other 
Christians,  not  being  spiritual,  could  not  com- 
prehend their  hidden  and  higher  senses.  They 
believed,  indeed,  that  the  Apostles  and  Evange- 
lists were  not  infallible ;  that  they  were  liable 
to  human  errors,  and  that  they  were  affected 
by  prejudices  and  false  opinions,  common  to 
their  countrymen,  which  had  been  implanted  in 
their  minds  in  childhood,  had  grown  with  their 
growth,  and  had  not  been  wholly  eradicated. 
But   the   theosophic    Gnostics,   who   allegorized 

*  Cap.  19.  p.  208. 


GENUINENESS  OF  THE  GOSPELS.         317 

and  spiritualized  the  words  of  the  Gospels,  had 
not  the  same  occasion  to  misapply  this  principle 
as  the  Marcionites,  who  were  not  allegorists. 
The  Marcionites  regarded  the  Gospels  as  color- 
ed throughout  by  the  Jewish  prejudices  of  their 
writers.  But,  by  taking  the  work  of  him 
whom  they  considered  as  the  most  enlightened 
of  the  Evangelists,  St.  Luke,  and  rejecting 
from  it  some  errors,  they  thought  themselves 
able  to  obtain  a  history  altogether  correct ;  and 
this  was  the  basis  of  their  system. 

Still,  had  any  seemingly  credible  history  of 
Christ's  ministry  existed,  more  favorable  to  the 
opinions  of  the  Gnostics  than  the  four  Gospels, 
there  can  be  no  doubt  that  they  would  have 
used  that  history  in  preference.  The  manner, 
therefore,  in  which  they  appealed  to  the  four 
Gospels,  or  to  the  history  of  Christ  as  contained 
in  the  Gospel  of  Luke,  without  bringing  any 
Gnostic  history  into  competition  with  them,  is 
proof  that  no  such  history  existed.  All  Chris- 
tians, the  catholics,  the  theosophic  Gnostics, 
the  Marcionites,  and,  as  we  have  before  seen, 
the  Hebrew  Christians,  were  equally  ignorant 
of  any  history  of  Christ's  ministry  different 
from  that  given  by  the  Evangelists.  No  party 
relied  on  any  other ;  no  party  had  any  other  to 
produce. 


318  EVIDENCES  OF  THE 

But  it  has  been  suggested,  or  implied,  that 
the  early  founders  of  the  Gnostic  sects  drew 
their  systems  from  their  philosophy,  and  con- 
nected them  only  with  some  general  belief  that 
the  coming  of  Christ  was  a  manifestation  of  the 
Supreme  God  for  the  purpose  of  delivering  men 
from  moral  evil  and  its  consequences  ;  and  that 
it  was  merely  by  way  of  reasoning  ad  hominem 
with  the  catholic  Christians,  that  the  Gnostics 
made  use  of  the  Gospels.*  Let  us  try  the  prob- 
ability of  this  supposition  by  applying  it  to  a 
particular  case,  that  of  the  Valentinians.  , 

We  have  seen  that  the  Valentinians  so  fully, 
and  in  such  various  ways,  professed  their  belief 
in  the  truth  of  the  Gospels,  that  their  opponents 
did  not  accuse  them  of  denying  it ;  though  this 
charge  would  unquestionably  have  been  brought 
against  them,  had  there  been  a  foundation  for 
it.  But  they  made  use  of  the  Gospels,  it  may 
be  said,  not  in  good  faith;  they  quoted  them 
only  "  to  satisfy  those  who  demanded  proofs 
from  Scripture  "  ;  f  or  undertook  to  explain  them 
by  way  of  answering  the  objections  of  those 
who  regarded  the  Gospels  as  of  authority. 
The  statements  already  made  show  that  these 

*  See,  for  example,  Walch's  Historie  der  Ketzereien,  I.  374. 
Matter,  Histoire  du  Gnosticisme,  II.  172,  190. 
f  Walch,  ubi  supra. 


GENUINENESS   OF  THE  GOSPELS.  319 

suppositions  have  no  probability  to  recommend 
them ;  but  let  us  examine  a  little  farther.  Ac- 
cording to  this  hypothesis,  the  Valentinians  did 
not  believe  the  authenticity  and  genuineness  of 
the  Gospels ;  they  did  not  sincerely  recognize 
their  authority ;  they  did  not  believe  them  to  fa- 
vor their  own  opinions  ;  and,  consequently,  they 
did  not  believe  them  to  teach  what  they  thought 
true  Christianity.  At  the  same  time,  it  is  evi- 
dent that  these  books  were  principally  relied  on 
by  their  opponents  as  a  storehouse  of  argu- 
ments against  them.  We  have,  indeed,  no  rea- 
son to  doubt  that  there  was  a  foundation  for  the 
strong  language  which  has  been  quoted  from 
Tertullian,  respecting  their  skilful  and  successful 
use  of  the  Scriptures.  We  may  believe  that 
the  Gnostics  sometimes  made  converts  from 
among  the  catholic  Christians,  and  showed 
much  talent,  after  the  fashion  of  their  times,  in 
reconciling  their  doctrines  with  the  New  Testa- 
ment, and  in  persuading  themselves  and  others 
that  they  were  indicated  in  the  parables  or  sup- 
ported by  the  declarations  of  Christ,  as  record- 
ed in  the  Gospels.  But,  after  all,  it  is  evident 
that  the  Gospels  do  not  teach  the  Gnostic  doc- 
trines, but  do  teach  what  is  irreconcilable  with 
those  doctrines.  It  is  equally  certain  that  this 
fact  was  recognized  by  a  great  majority  of  early 


320  EVIDENCES   OF   THE 

believers  (for  the  catholic  Christians  far  outnum- 
bered the  Gnostics),  and  even  by  a  very  large 
and  respectable  portion  of  the  Gnostics  them- 
selves, the  Marcionites,  as  appears  from  the  ex- 
pedient to  which  they  had  recourse,  of  rejecting 
the  use  of  three  of  the  Gospels,  and  mutilating 
that  which  they  retained.  Would  the  Valentin- 
ians,  then,  have  professed  to  regard  those  books 
as  authentic,  had  there  been  good  reasons  for 
questioning  their  authenticity  ?  Is  it  credible 
that  they  would,  with  such  a  consistent  show  of 
conviction  as  to  deceive  and  silence  their  oppo- 
nents, have  professed  their  belief  in  the  truth 
of  the  Gospels,  had  they  not  believed  them 
true  ?  So  far  from  it,  they  would  at  once  have 
seized  on  the  triumph,  or  at  least  the  advan- 
tage, which  was  evidently  in  their  power,  could 
the  genuineness  and  authority  of  the  books 
relied  on  by  their  opponents  have  been  fairly 
denied  or  fairly  questioned.  The  course  to  be 
pursued  would  have  been  clear ;  and  neither  an 
honest  man,  nor  a  controvertist  of  common 
ability,  could  have  neglected  to  take  it.  The 
Valentinians,  and  the  other  theosophic  Gnostics, 
would  not  have  persisted  in  dishonestly  affirm- 
ing or  implying  their  belief  of  the  authenticity 
of  books  which  they  did  not  believe  to  be  au- 
thentic,   and   which   furnished   their   opponents 


GENUINENESS  OF  THE  GOSPELS.         321 

with  arguments  against  their  doctrines,  conclu- 
sive in  themselves,  and  by  most  regarded  as  con- 
clusive. 

Let  us  view  the  subject  under  another  aspect. 
The  Gospels  were  either  known  to  Valentinus 
himself,  or  they  were  not.  If  they  were  known 
to  him,  they  were  either  regarded  by  him  as 
genuine  and  authentic,  or  they  were  not.  He 
lived  at  so  early  an  age,  in  the  first  half  of  the 
second  century,  that  no  question  could  have 
existed  in  his  time,  whether  they  were  entitled 
to  that  character.  The  fact  must  have  been 
known,  either  that  they  were,  or  that  they 
were  not,  entitled  to  it.  If  he  regarded  them 
as  genuine  and  authentic,  there  can  be  no  doubt 
that  they  were  so  regarded  by  his  followers,  and 
by  the  great  body  of  contemporary  Christians ; 
and  our  inquiry  is  at  an  end.  Let  us  suppose, 
then,  either  that  they  were  not  known  to  him, 
that  they  were  not  in  existence,  —  or  that,  being 
known  to  him,  they  were  rejected  by  him  as  un- 
worthy of  credit.  In  either  case,  he  built  his 
system  on  other  foundations,  and  supported  it 
by  other  arguments,  than  what  those  books  might 
afford.  In  either  case,  it  is  evident  that  his  fol- 
lowers would  never  have  admitted  or  implied  the 
truth  of  the  Gospels.  They  would  never  have 
consented  to  receive,  as  genuine  and  authentic, 

VOL.  HI.  41 


322  EVIDENCES  OF  THE 

books  not  known  to  their  master,  or  which  he 
had  rejected,  —  books  which  they  themselves 
must  have  believed  to  be  the  fabrications  of  op- 
ponents who  had  excluded  him  and  them  from 
their  community,  and  which  furnished  those  op- 
ponents with  the  strongest  arguments  against 
what  they  regarded  as  true  Christianity.  They 
would  not  have  exposed  themselves  to  such  ex- 
postulations as  those  of  Tertullian  :  —  "If  they 
are  heretics,  they  are  not  Christians,  not  deriv- 
ing their  doctrine  from  Christ Not  being 

Christians,  they  have  no  property  in  the  books 
of  Christians.  It  may  justly  be  said  to  them. 
Who  are  you?  When  and  whence  did  you 
come  ?  What  are  you,  who  do  not  belong  to 
me,  doing  on  my  premises  ?  By  what  right, 
Marcion,  do  you  cut  down  my  woods  ?  By  what 
license,  Valentinus,  do  you  divert  the  water  of 
my  springs  ?  By  w^hat  authority,  Apelles,  are  you 
removing  my  landmarks  ?  How  is  it,  that  you 
others  are  sowing  and  pasturing  here  at  your 
pleasure  ?  It  is  my  possession ;  I  have  pos- 
sessed it  of  old ;  I  trace  back  my  title  to  its 
original  source  ;  I  am  heir  of  the  Apostles."  * 
To  such  language  it  would  have  required  neither 
an  acute  nor  an  angry  controvertist  to  give  the 

*  De  Praescript.  Haeretic.  c.  37.  p.  215. 


GENUINENESS  OF  THE  GOSPELS.  323 

answer,  that  this  disputed  possession  was  not 
worth  claiming,  could  such  an  answer  have  been 
given  with  truth. 

In  examining  (in  the  Second  Part  of  this 
work)  the  direct  historical  evidence  of  the 
genuineness  of  the  Gospels,  we  have  seen  that 
it  does  not  mainly  consist,  as  in  the  case  of 
other  books,  of  assertions  and  implications  of 
individual  writers  concerning  their  authorship. 
It  rests  on  the  fact,  that  they  were  universally 
received,  as  the  works  of  those  to  whom  they 
are  ascribed,  by  the  great  body  of  catholic 
Christians,  at  so  early  a  period  that  no  mistake 
on  the  subject  could  have  been  committed  ;  and 
on  another  consideration  of  equal  weight,  that 
this  general  reception  of  the  Gospels  as  genuine, 
wherever  Christianity  had  been  preached,  is  a 
phenomenon  which  can  be  accounted  for  only 
on  the  supposition  of  their  genuineness. 

But,  in  turning  from  the  catholic  Christians 
to  the  Gnostics,  it  might  not  be  unreasonable 
to  apprehend,  considering  the  opposition  in 
which  the  two  parties  stood  to  each  other,  that 
something  would  appear  to  cloud  the  testimony 
of  the  former,  and,  perhaps,  to  shake  our  con- 
fidence in  it  as  conclusive.  Certainly,  had  there 
been,  during  the  first  ages  of  Christianity,  any 


324  EVIDENCES  OF  THE 

doubt  concerning  the  genuineness  of  the  Gos- 
pels, we  should  have  learned  it  from  the  Gnos- 
tics. But,  so  far  from  any  doubt  being  sug- 
gested by  the  examination  which  we  have  gone 
through,  we  find  the  Gnostics  strongly  confirm- 
ing the  testimony  of  their  catholic  opponents. 
Valentinus  and  Basilides  carry  us  back  to  the 
earlier  part  of  the  second  century ;  *  and  they, 
in  common  with  the  catholic  Christians,  re- 
ceived the  Gospels  as  the  authentic  histories 
of  the  ministry  of  Christ.  About  the  same  pe- 
riod, Marcion  affords  his  evidence  to  the  general 
reception  of  one  of  the  Gospels,  and,  conse- 
quently, as  we  have  seen,  proof  of  the  reception 
of  the  other  three. f  On  the  Gospels,  or,  to  in- 
clude the  case  of  the  Marcionites  and  the  He- 
brew Christians,  on  a  history  of  Christ,  such  as 
is  found  in  one  of  the  Gospels,  every  form  of 
Christian  faith  rested  as  its  foundation.  No 
history  presenting  a  different  view  of  his  minis- 
try was  in  existence. 

Here,  then,  we  conclude  our  statement  of 
the  historical  evidence,  both  direct  and  subsidia- 
ry, of  the  Genuineness  of  the  Gospels.  The 
catholic  Christians  bear  testimony  to  their  hav- 

*  See  Vol.  II.  pp.  84-87.  f  See  before,  pp.  304,  305. 


GENUINENESS  OF  THE  GOSPELS.         325 

ing  been  written  by  the  particular  individuals  to 
whom  they  are  ascribed.  The  Gnostics  confirm 
this  testimony  by  the  proofs  which  they  afford 
of  their  general  reception  and  authority. 

We  have  pursued  this  investigation  carefully 
and  at  length,  as  if  there  was  some  intrinsic 
improbability  in  the  proposition,  that  the  Gos- 
pels were  written  by  the  authors  to  whom  they 
are  ascribed,  —  some  presumption  against  it, 
such  as  to  require  a  patient  removal  of  difficul- 
ties, and  an  accumulation  of  strong  evidence, 
to  establish  its  truth.  But,  on  the  contrary,  it 
is  apparent  that  the  Gospels  were  written  by 
early  believers  in  our  Lord ;  there  is  not  a  show 
of  evidence  that  they  were  written  by  any 
other  believers  than  those  to  whom  they  have 
been  ascribed  ;  and  nothing  is  more  probable 
than  that  some  of  his  immediate  disciples,  or 
of  their  intimate  companions,  should  have  left 
us  such  narratives  of  his  life. 

The  founder  of  our  religion,  whether  one 
believe  or  not  that  he  was  authorized  by  God 
to  speak  in  his  name,  was  unquestionably  the 
most  wonderful  individual  who  ever  appeared 
on  earth.  A  Jew,  a  Galileean,  in  humble  life, 
poor,  without  literary  culture,  without  worldly 
power  or  influence ;   teaching  but  for   a   short 


326  EVIDENCES  OF  THE 

time  (probably  not  more  than  two  years)  ;  wan- 
dering about  the  shores  of  the  lake  of  Galilee 
and  of  the  Jordan ;  scarcely  entering  Jerusalem 
but  to  be  driven  away  by  persecution,  till  at 
last  he  went  thither  to  perish  under  it ;  collect- 
ing during  his  lifetime  only  a  small  body  of  illit- 
erate, and  often  wavering,  followers ;  addressing 
men  whose  incapacity,  prejudices,  or  hatred  con- 
tinually led  them  to  mistake  or  to  pervert  his 
meaning;  surrounded,  and  apparently  overpow- 
ered, by  his  unbelieving  countrymen,  who  re- 
garded him  as  a  blasphemer  and  caused  him  to 
suffer  the  death  of  the  most  un  pitied  of  male- 
factors, —  this  person  has  wrought  an  effect,  to 
which  there  is  nothing  parallel,  on  the  opinions 
and  on  the  condition  of  the  most  enlightened 
portion  of  our  race.  The  moral  civilization  of 
the  world,  the  noblest  conceptions  which  men 
have  entertained  of  religion,  of  their  nature  and 
of  their  duties,  are  to  be  traced  back  directly  to 
him.  They  come  to  us,  not  from  the  groves  of 
the  Academy,  not  from  the  walks  by  the  Ilissus 
which  Aristotle  frequented,  nor  from  the  Paint- 
ed Portico  of  Athens  where  Zeno  taught ;  but 
from  the  mountain  on  which  Jesus  delivered  his 
first  recorded  discourse ;  from  the  synagogue 
and  the  streets  of  the  small  town  of  Caperna- 
um, of  which  not  a  ruin  remains  to  fix  its  site  ; 


GENUINENESS  OF  THE  GOSPELS.         327 

from  fishing-boats  on  the  lake  of  Galilee  ;  from 
the  less  inhabited  tracts  —  the  deserts,  as  they 
have  been  called  —  of  Palestine ;  from  the 
courts  of  the  Jewish  temple,  where  he  who 
spoke  was  confronting  men  plotting  his  destruc- 
tion ;  from  the  cross  of  one  expiring  in  agony 
amid  the  savage  triumph  of  his  enemies.  After 
witnessing  such  a  death,  his  disciples  lost  all  their 
doubts.  They  affirmed  their  master  to  be  the 
Saviour  of  the  World,  the  Son  of  God.  They 
devoted  themselves  to  labor  and  suffer,  and,  if 
need  were,  to  die,  in  making  him  known  to  men. 
What  they  strove  to  impress  upon  the  minds  of 
others  was  what,  as  they  asserted,  he  had  done 
and  taught.  They  "knew  nothing  but  Jesus 
Christ  and  him  crucified."  It  was  the  history, 
real  or  pretended,  of  his  ministry  on  earth,  which 
was  the  basis  of  all  their  teaching, —  the  essential 
instruction  to  be  first  communicated  to  all  who 
were  summoned  to  put  their  trust  in  him,  —  to 
take  up  their  cross,  and  follow  him  in  the  new 
path  which  he  had  opened  from  earth  to  heaven. 
Now  there  can  be  no  supposition  more  irrational, 
than  that  the  history  of  Christ,  which  was  thus 
promulgated  by  all  his  first  disciples,  and  receiv- 
ed by  all  their  first  converts,  was  lost  before  the 
beginning  of  the  second  century,  and  another 
history  substituted  in  its  place.     But  if  the  Gos- 


328  EVIDENCES  OF  THE 

pels  contain  the  history  of  Christ  as  it  was 
promulgated  by  his  Apostles,  there  can  be  no 
ground  for  doubting  that  they  were  written  by 
the  authors  to  whom  they  are  ascribed,  by 
Apostles  and  companions  of  Apostles. 

To  all  the  weight  of  evidence  that  the  Gos- 
pels were  written  by  the  authors  to  whom  they 
have  been  ascribed,  what  other  account  of  their 
origin  has  been  or  may  be  opposed  ?  The  gen- 
uineness of  the  Gospel  of  John  has  been  direct- 
ly impugned  by  some  modern  German  theolo- 
gians. Their  hypotheses  are,  necessarily,  only 
developments  of  one  essential  proposition,  that 
this  Gospel  is  a  spurious  work,  fraudulently  as- 
cribed to  the  Apostle  by  its  original  writer,  or 
by  some  other  individual  or  individuals.  There 
can  be  no  direct  evidence  of  the  truth  of  this 
supposition;  and  with  it  another  must  be  con- 
nected, namely,  that  this  imagined  fraud  was  so 
successful  as  to  impose  on  all  Christians,  catholic 
and  heretical,  from  the  beginning  of  the  second 
century.  But,  if  this  be  a  moral  impossibility, 
then  there  is  a  moral  certainty  that  the  Gospel 
ascribed  to  John  was  the  work  of  that  Apostle. 
Yet  this  brief  statement,  decisive  as  it  may  be, 
gives  but  a  very  imperfect  view  of  those  facts 
and  considerations,  heretofore  presented,  which 


GENUINENESS  OF  THE  GOSPELS.         329 

show  that  any  other  supposition  is  altogether  in- 
credible. 

In  respect  to    the  other  three    Gospels,   the 
attacks  on  their  genuineness  and  authenticity  by 
many  of  the  modern  German  theologians  have 
been  more  elaborate.     But,  if  their  genuineness 
be  denied,  there  are  only  two  fundamental  sup- 
positions,  one  or  the  other  of  which   must  be 
made.     One   is  of  the  same   nature  with   that 
which  has  been  advanced  concerning  St.  John's 
Gospel.     It  may  be  asserted  that  each  of  them 
is  a  spurious  work  of  some  one  unknown  author. 
But  this  supposition  has  been  generally  felt  to 
be    too   indefensible.       Recourse    has    therefore 
been  had  to  different  hypotheses,  which  may  all 
be  resolved  into  one  fundamental  supposition,  — 
that  the  first  three  Gospels  are,  respectively,  ag- 
gregates of  stories  by  different  hands,  brought 
together   by  different  compilers.     In   the    First 
Part  of  this  work,  we  have  examined  this  sup- 
position under  as  plausible  a  form   as    any   in 
which  it  has  appeared;  and,  if  the  view  there 
taken  of  the  subject  be  correct,  there  is  some- 
thing  like    mathematical    demonstration   of    its 
falsity.     But  so  far  as  those  hypotheses  are  con- 
nected,  as  they  have   been,  with   the  supposi- 
tion that  the  narratives  contained  in   the  first 
three   Gospels  are  distorted   and  discolored    by 

VOL.  III.  42 


330  EVIDENCES  OF  THE 

tradition,  there  is  a  moral  demonstration  of  their 
falsity.  The  character  of  Jesus  Christ  as  ex- 
hibited in  any  one  of  the  first  three  Gospels,  or 
in  all  of  them  taken  together,  is  equally  consis- 
tent and  wonderful.  It  is,  at  the  same  time,  a 
character  to  which  nothing  in  human  history, 
before  or  after,  presents  a  parallel  or  a  resem- 
blance. He  appears  as  one  acting  under  the 
miraculous  conviction  that  he  was  the  instru- 
ment of  God,  to  assure  men,  on  His  authority, 
of  their  relations  to  Him  and  to  eternity ;  and 
this  conception  of  his  character  is  fully  sustain- 
ed. In  the  midst  of  men  who  appear,  as  we 
should  expect  the  Jews  of  that  age  to  appear, 
ignorant,  narrow-minded,  dull  in  their  percep- 
tions, indocile,  many  of  them  hating  him  with 
all  the  hatred  of  bigotry;  throughout  trials  of 
every  sort ;  under  external  circumstances  so  hu- 
miliating that  we  shrink  from  the  thought  of 
them,  he  shows  always  the  same  unalterable 
elevation  of  character,  requiring  no  human  sup- 
port. We  feel  'that  he  was  not  to  be  degraded 
by  any  insult;  and  that  no  praise  could  have 
been  addressed  to  him,  had  it  come  from  the 
highest  of  men,  which  would  not  have  been  a 
strange  impertinence.  If  our  natural  feelings 
have  been  unperverted,  we  follow  him,  if  not 
with  the  conviction,  —  that  conviction  has  been 


GENUINENESS   OF  THE   GOSPELS.         331 

resisted,  —  but  certainly  with  a  sentiment,  con- 
tinually prompting  us  to  say,  "  Truly,  this  was 
the  Son  of  God."  But  it  is  folly  to  suppose 
that  such  a  portraiture  of  character  could  have 
been  the  result  of  an  aggregation  of  fabulous 
traditionary  stories  which  had  been  moulded  by 
different  minds,  Jewish  or  Gentile.  The  com- 
parison is  unworthy  of  the  subject,  but  it  would 
not  be  more  absurd  to  imagine  that  the  finest 
works  of  ancient  plastic  art,  —  the  display  of 
perfect  physical  beauty  in  the  Apollo  Belvidere, 
—  had  been  produced  by  putting  together  the 
labors  of  different  artists  at  different  times,  all 
working  without  a  model,  this  making  one  part 
or  member,  and  that  another. 

We  may  enter  on  the  inquiry  respecting  the 
genuineness  of  the  Gospels  merely  as  scholars 
and  critics,  without  any  previous  opinion  re- 
specting their  contents.  To  a  thinking  man, 
whatever  may  be  his  opinion,  it  must  appear  an 
object  of  great  curiosity  to  determine  the  au- 
thorship of  books  so  extraordinary,  and  which 
have  had  such  vast  influence.  In  treating  the 
historical  evidence  for  their  genuineness,  we 
deal  with  historical  facts,  and  our  reasoning  is 
of  a  kind  with  which  we  are  familiar,  and 
which   is   fully  within   the   cognizance   of   our 


332  EVIDENCES    OF  THE 

judgment.     But  if,   from   the   preceding  exam- 
ination  of   this    evidence,    it   appears   that   the 
Gospels  are  the  works  of  those  to  whom  they 
have  been  ascribed,  then  the  argument  we  have 
pursued,  and  which  we  ought  to  pursue,  merely 
as  scholars  and  critics,  or,  I  may  better  say,  as 
intelligent   men,  capable   of  understanding  the 
force  of  reasoning,  leads  to  results  of  the  deep- 
est moment.     Upon  arriving  at  the  end  of  our 
journey,   on   quitting  the  detail   of  history  and 
criticism,  through  which  it  has  lain,  considera- 
tions  of    another   class    present    themselves   to 
view ;  we  see  rising  before  us  objects  the  most 
solemn    and    sublime ;    we   have   been   brought 
to  the  contemplation  of  all  that  is  of  permanent 
and  essential  interest  to  man.     Let  us  examine 
the  reasoning  thoroughly  as  logicians  ;  but  if  it 
will  bear  this  examination,  then  the  conclusion 
to  which  it  leads  is  to  be  regarded  with  very 
different   feelings    from    what    may   have    been 
called  forth  during  its  process.     If  the  Gospels 
were  written,  by  the  authors  to  whom  they  are 
ascribed,  two  of  them  by  individuals  who  were 
intimate  companions  of  Jesus,  eyewitnesses  of 
his    ministry,    who   knew    the    facts,    whatever 
they  were,  of  his  public  life,  and  the  other  two, 
by  those    who   received    their   accounts   imme- 
diately from  such  eyewitnesses  ;   then  the  nar- 


GENUINENESS  OF  THE  GOSPELS.         333 

rative  of  his  ministry  contained  in  the  Gospels 
is  true.  The  Apostles  could  not  have  been 
deceived  respecting  the  facts  which  they  pro- 
fess to  relate.  If  Jesus  Christ  did  not,  by  a 
series  of  miracles  performed  before  crowds  of 
spectators,  by  his  doctrines,  and  by  an  exhi- 
bition of  character  altogether  conformed  to  his 
claims,  give  full  evidence  of  his  being  author- 
ized to  speak  in  the  name  of  God,  then  the 
Gospels  are  not  a  collection  of  legends,  the 
growth  of  tradition  in  an  ignorant  and  marvel- 
loving  age,  —  that  supposition  is  excluded  by 
the  proof  of  their  genuineness,  —  they  are 
throughout  a  tissue  of  monstrous  and  inexplica- 
ble falsehoods.  If  the  Gospels  be  genuine, 
there  are  but  two  conclusions  which  are  possi- 
ble. The  narrative  of  the  public  life  of  Jesus 
contained  in  them  is  either  essentially  true,  or  it 
is  essentially  false  ;  and  if  false,  it  is  so  thorough- 
ly false,  that  we  know  nothing  concerning  his 
character  and  actions.  His  immediate  followers 
have  buried  his  history  under  a  mass  of  prodi- 
gious fictions  ;  and  these  fictions  they  propagated, 
in  the  face  of  his  enemies  and  their  own,  among 
those  whom  they  affirmed  to  have  witnessed  the 
pretended  events  which  they  related.  The  true 
history  of  Jesus  Christ,  of  him  who  really  has 
wrought  such  vast  changes  in  the  condition  of 


334  EVIDENCES  OF  THE 

men,  is  unknown ;  and  instead  of  it,  we  have  a 
fiction  of  inexpressible  grandeur,  the  conception 
of  some  Jews  of  Galilee,  fishermen,  tax-gather- 
ers, and  others,  who  were  shamelessly  and  reck- 
lessly destitute  of  veracity.  —  But  we  have 
brought  the  argument  to  an  absurdity  so  repul- 
sive, that  it  would  be  equally  offensive  and  un- 
profitable to  dwell  on  it  longer. 

It  follows,  then,  that  the  history  of  Jesus  con- 
tained in  the  Gospels  is  true.  The  essential 
facts  of  religion  have  been  expressly  made 
known  to  men  on  the  authority  of  God.  They 
are  facts,  glorious,  solemn,  overwhelming,  but  as 
real  as  the  ordinary  objects  of  every-day  life ; 
certain,  as  nothing  future  in  life  can  be.  In  our 
day,  the  belief  of  these  facts  is  openly  reject- 
ed ;  the  evidence  of  them  is  continually  assailed, 
directly  and  indirectly ;  baseless  and  thoroughly 
irreligious  speculations  are  confidently  put  forth 
and  widely  received  as  substitutes  for  Christian 
faith,  of  which,  as  in  mockery,  they  assume  the 
name  ;  and  there  are  many  who  acquiesce  in  a 
general  notion  that  religion  may  be  true,  and 
who  regard  this  notion  as  a  source  of  consola- 
tion and  hope,  without  any  such  settled  convic- 
tion of  its  truth  as  may  essentially  affect  their 
characters.  But  if  there  be  a  God  in  whose  in- 
finite goodness  we  and  all  things  are  embosom- 


GENUINENESS  OF  THE  GOSPELS.  335 

ed ;  if  there  be  a  future  life  which  spreads  before 
us,  and  all  whom  we  love,  exhaustless  scenes 
of  attainable  happiness ;  if  that  Infinite  Being, 
who  so  eludes  the  grasp  of  human  thought,  have 
really  brought  himself  into  direct  communication 
with  mankind ;  if  the  character  of  Jesus  Christ 
be  not  an  inexplicable  riddle,  but  a  wonderful 
reality,  these  are  truths  of  which  a  wise  man 
may  well  desire  fully  to  assure  himself.  And 
perhaps  there  is  no  way  in  which  he  may  attain 
a  stronger  feeling  of  certainty,  than  when  he 
approaches  them,  as  we  have  done,  through  rea- 
soning conversant  about  ordinary  subjects  of 
thought,  requiring  no  exercise  of  judgment  be- 
yond the  common  capacity  of  every  intelligent 
man,  not  taking  us  into  the  dim  light  of  meta- 
physical inquiry,  involving  the  use  of  no  uncer- 
tain language,  and  calling  forth  no  doubts  from 
that  region  which  lies  on  every  side  beyond  the 
bounds  of  our  knowledge  and  our  powers.  The 
way  which  we  have  travelled  is  such,  that  it  may 
by  contrast  heighten  the  effect  of  the  prospect 
on  which  it  opens.  It  is  somewhat  as  if,  by  an 
easy  ascent,  we  found  ourselves  standing  on  a 
vast  height  with  the  unbounded  ocean  spreading 
out  before  us. 

But,  however  convinced  we  may  be  of  the 


336  GENUINENESS  OF  THE  GOSPELS. 

genuineness  of  the  Gospels,  one  distinct  and 
very  important  branch  of  the  evidence  of  that 
fact  has  not  yet  been  treated.  It  is  the  evidence 
founded  on  the  intrinsic  character  of  the  Gos- 
pels themselves,  evidence  in  which  the  proofs  of 
their  genuineness  and  their  truth  are  essentially 
blended  together.  The  main  proposition  to  be 
established  by  it  is,  that  the  Gospels  are  of 
such  a  character,  that  they  could  have  been 
written  only  by  individuals  of  such  a  character, 
and  so  circumstanced,  as  those  to  whom  they 
are  ascribed. 


ADDITIONAL    NOTES 


43 


ADDITIONAL    NOTES. 


NOTE   A. 
(See  pp.  51,  92,  116,  and  134.) 

ON  THE  DISTINCTION  MADE  BY  THE  ANCIENTS  BETWEEN 
THINGS  INTELLIGIBLE  AND  THINGS  SENSIBLE;  ON 
THE  USE  OF  THE  TERMS  SPIRITUAL  AND  MATERIAL 
AS  APPLIED  TO  THEIR  SPECULATIONS;  AND  ON  THE 
NATURE  OF  MATTER. 


The  division  of  substances  into  material  and  spiritual, 
which  is  so  familiar  to  us,  was  not  equally  familiar  to  the 
ancients.  Instead  of  this,  Plato  and  his  followers  adopted 
another.  They  divided  all  beings  into  sensible,,  or  those 
perceptible  by  the  senses,  and  intelligible^  or  those  which 
are  the  objects  of  the  intellect  alone.  To  the  latter  class 
Plato  assigned  all  general  ideas,  those  derived  from  sensi- 
ble objects,  as  well  as  others ;  not  regarding  these  ideas, 
however,  as  mere  conceptions  either  of  the  human  or  of  the 
divine  mind,  but  as  proper  separate  existences,  endued  with 
life  and  divinity.  They  constituted  his  archetypal  world, 
the  intelligible  world,  after  the  model  of  which  was  formed 
the  sensible  world,  the  material  universe.  For  example, 
goodness,  beauty,  unity,  number,  equality,  roundness,  white- 
ness, are,  according  to  him,   all  of  them,  beings  existing 


iv  ADDITIONAL  NOTES. 

apart  in  the  perfect  world  of  archetypal  Ideas.  But  these 
Ideas  are  not  merely  the  patterns  of  sensible  things ;  they 
likewise  form  their  essences.  They  communicate  them- 
selves to  matter,  and  thus  cause  sensible  things  to  be  good, 
beautiful,  one  or  many,  equal,  round,  and  white.  But  mat- 
ter but  imperfectly  receives,  and  renders  back,  the  impres- 
sion of  these  archetypes,  these  ideal  forms,  which  can  be 
discerned  only  by  the  eye  of  the  mind.  They,  when 
compared  with  the  material  things  which  bear  their  likeness, 
are  the  only  real  existences.  Of  these  archetypes  the 
objects  of  the  senses  are  but  shadowy  and  fleeting  resem- 
blances, coming  into  existence  and  perishing,  but  having  no 
proper  being.  Or  to  express  what  has  been  said  in  the 
words  of  Cicero,  "  Nihil  Plato  putat  esse,  quod  oriatur  et 
intereat,  idque  solum  esse,  quod  semper  tale  sit,  qualem 
ideam  appellat  ille,  nos  speciem.''''  * 

This  is  an  oudine  of  the  doctrine  of  Plato.  But  it  may 
be  well  to  enter  into  a  little  further  explanation  of  it. 

Plato  in  his  Tim8eus,f  after  maintaining  that  the  created 
world  is  a  living  being,  |  goes  on  to  infer,  that  the  pattern 
after  which  it  was  formed,  the  intelligible  world  of  Ideas,  is 
a  perfect  living  being,  "  comprehending  in  itself  all  intel- 
ligible living  beings,  in  the  same  manner  as  this  world  con- 
tains us  and  all  other  visible  animals."  Afterwards,  he 
speaks  of  this  world,  with  express  reference  to  its  pattern, 
as  being  "  an  image  of  the  eternal  gods,"§  that  is,  of  the 
eternal  Ideas  after  which  it  was  formed ;  and,  in  the  conclu- 
sion of  the  Dialogue,  he  calls  the  world  "  a  visible  living 


*  Tusculan.  Disputat.  Lib.  I.  §  24.  t  P.  30. 

t  Zwov,  animal,  living  being.  The  word  has  been  commonly  trans- 
lated "  animal " ;  but  it  would  seem  that  our  modern  associations 
with  the  latter  term  should  be  avoided. 

§   F.  37. 


PLATO'S   DOCTRINE  OF  IDEAS.  v 

being  comprehending  the  visible  animals,  a  sensible  god, 
the  image  of  the  intelligible." 

Cudworth,  who  wished  to  believe  that  Plato's  intelligible 
world  was  merely  an  ideal  image  of  the  future  creation, 
preexisting  in  the  mind  of  the  Deity,  says,  that,  "  Plato 
himself  speaking  obscurely  of  this  intelligible  world,  and 
the  Ideas  of  it,  no  wonder  if  many  of  his  pagan  followers 
have  absurdly  made  so  many  distinct  animals  and  gods  of 
them."  *  But  it  seems  unreasonable  in  the  present  case  to 
bring  the  charge  of  obscurity  against  Plato.  It  is  difficult 
to  perceive  how  he  could  have  expressed  himself  more 
explicitly,  or  how  language  plainer  than  what  he  has  used 
can  have  been  used  by  his  followers. 

Cudworth  afterwards  says, — "  It  was  a  monstrous  extrav- 
agancy of  some  of  the  later  Platonists  to  suppose  the  Ideas, 
all  of  them,  to  be  so  many  distinct  substances  and  animals" ; 
and,  after  remarking  that  this  doctrine  has  been  imputed  to 
Plato  himself  by  Tertullian  and  others,  he  adds,  —  "Neither 
can  it  be  denied  but  that  there  are  some  odd  expressions  in 
Plato,  sounding  that  way,  who  therefore  may  not  be  justi- 
fied in  this,  nor  I  think  in  some  other  conceits  of  his,  con- 
cerning these  Ideas :  as  when  he  contends  that  they  are 
not  only  the  objects  of  science,  but  also  the  proper  and 
physical  causes  of  all  things  here  below ;  as,  for  example, 
that  the  Ideas  of  similitude  and  dissimilitude  are  the  causes 
of  the  likeness  and  unlikeness  of  all  things  to  one  another 
by  their  participation  of  them.  Nevertheless,  it  cannot  be 
at  all  doubted,  but  that  Plato  himself,  and  most  of  his  fol- 
lowers, very  well  understood  that  these  Ideas  were,  all  of 
them,  really  nothing  else  but  the  noemata,  or  conceptions, 
of  that  one  perfect  Intellect  which  was  their  second  hy- 
postasis [the  second  person  of  their  Trinity]  ;     and  there- 

*  Intellectual  System,  Ch.  IV.  §  32.  p.  499.     Original  folio  Ed. 


vi  ADDITIONAL   NOTES. 

fore  they  could  not  look  upon  them,  in  good  earnest,  as  so 
many  distinct  substances  existing  severally  and  apart  by 
themselves  out  of  any  mind,  however  they  were  guilty  of 
some  extravagant  expressions  concerning  them."  * 

Such  is  the  view  of  the  subject  taken  by  Cudworth ;  but 
he  adduces  no  evidence  in  support  of  his  assertion,  that  it 
cannot  be  doubted  that  Plato  and  most  of  his  followers  did 
not  mean  what  they  appear  to  mean,  t 

*  Ibid.  §  36.  pp.  562,  563. 

t  Mosheitn,  in  his  Latin  translation  of  Cudworth  (  I.  85G,  857),  has 
a  note  on  the  passage  just  quoted,  in  which  he  argues  for  the  opinion 
asserted  by  Cudworth,  and  held  by  some  other  modern  writers,  that 
the  Ideas  of  Plato  were  only  ideas  in  the  common  sense  of  the  word, 
existing  (primarily)  in  the  Divine  Mind.  But  it  is  difficult  to  deter- 
mine what  was  Mosheim's  prevailing  belief  on  the  subject.  He  does 
not  claim  to  be  confident,  and  he  certainly  was  not  consistent,  in  hold- 
ing the  opinion  which  in  this  note  he  undertakes  to  defend;  and 
the  character  of  the  note  itself  is  such  as  to  excite  some  suspicion 
that  his  true  purpose  in  it  was  to  express  indirectly  his  strong  sense 
of  the  absurdity  of  what  he  recognized  to  be  the  real  doctrine  of 
Plato. 

He  says  that  Cudworth  "  learnedly  proves  "  his  assertion;  whereas 
Cudworth  hardly  makes  a  show  of  bringing  any  proof  of  it.  He 
himself  produces  no  passage  from  Plato  in  support  of  the  position 
which  he  professes  to  maintain.  He  offers  nothing  but  a  general  and 
very  unsatisfactory  explanation  of  the  representations  of  Plato  which 
are  irreconcilable  with  it ;  and  he  takes  notice,  without  attempting  to 
controvert  it,  of  the  all  but  decisive  authority  of  Aristotle,  who  as- 
cribes to  Plato  the  doctrine  of  Ideas  subsisting  by  themselves.  His 
sole  argument,  on  which  he  is  evidently  not  unwilling  to  employ 
much  strength  of  language,  is  simply  this,  —  That  what  has  been  rep- 
resented to  be  the  Platonic  doctrine  of  ideas  is  a  doctrine  too  irrational 
to  be  ascribed  to  any  intelligent  man.  "If  I  find,"  he  says,  "an 
opinion  ascribed  to  a  man  not  deficient  in  capacity  or  learning,  which 
is  clearly  absurd  and  foolish,  and  which  is  not  necessarily  connected 
with  his  other  doctrines,  I  shall  not  readily  be  persuaded  that  no 
injustice  is  done  him,  although  some  passages  may  be  produced 
from  hi[n  which  seem  clearly  to  prove  the  charge But  the 


PLATO'S   DOCTRINE  OF   IDEAS.  vii 

Plato  represents   his   archetypal    Ideas  as   having   been 


opinion  which  Plato  is  said  to  have  held  is  so  absurd  and  ridiculous, 
that,  were  it  explained  in  proper  and  plain  words,  every  one  not 
wholly  destitute  of  understanding  would  perceive  its  inanity  and 
folly." 

But  the  doctrine  which  Mosheim  here  represents  as  so  irrational  he 
expressly  ascribes  to  Plato  in  another  note,  following  at  no  great  dis- 
tance. "  If  I  am  not  wholly  deceived,"  he  says  (p.  869),  "  the  eter- 
nal gods  of  Plato  are  no  other  than  the  eternal  patterns  and  species  of 
all  things,  conformably  to  which  Plato  conceived  this  world  to  have 
been  formed  by  the  Supreme  Divinity."  "Plato  so  speaks  of  these 
eternal  gods,  that  it  is  apparent  that  he  meant  natures  apart  and  sep- 
arate from  the  highest  God,  to  whom  he  ascribes  the  formation  of  the 
world.''  Farther  on  (p.  900),  Mosheim  recurs  to  the  opinion  first 
professed  by  him ;  that  is,  he  says,  that,  "  as  he  has  before  professed, 
he  is  inclined  to  the  opinion,  that  the  eternal  patterns  of  things  are  not 
to  be  separated  from  God  himself,  except  by  an  act  of  thought."  But, 
in  the  very  note  from  which  this  is  quoted,  he  also  says  that  "  nothing 
can  be  plainer  "  than  that  Plato,  in  his  TimtEus,  ''  distinctly  separates 
his  eternal  species  or  Ideas  from  the  iVIaker  of  the  World";  he  de- 
nies that  Plato  in  that  work  taught  the  doctrine  held  by  the  later 
Platonists,  of  three  hypostases  in  the  Divinity ;  he  maintains  that 
Plato  "knew  of  no  other  principal  God  except  the  Maker  of  the 
World,"  and  affirms  that  "every  one  acquainted  with  the  Platonic 
philosophy  will  agree  thjit  Plato  did  not  place  his  eternal  patterns  and 
species  of  things  in  the  principal  person"  of  that  Trinity  which  he 
has  been  imagined  to  have  taught. 

Whether  Mosheim's  strong  sense  of  the  absurdit}'  of  Plato's  doc- 
trine of  Ideas  did,  in  fact,  lead  him  to  vacillate  in  his  opinion  of  what 
Plato  intended,  or  whether  he  did  not  care  to  express  his  real  senti- 
ments concerning  that  doctrine  without  throwing  a  veil  over  them, 
are  questions  not  easy  to  decide.  Nor  is  one  assisted  in  forming  a  de- 
cision by  two  other  notes  (pp.  640-846),  in  which  he  professedly 
attempts  to  exculpate  even  the  later  Platonists  from  meaning  what 
they  said  concerning  hypostatized,or  animate  and  deified,  Ideas.  "  It 
seems  to  me,"  he  observes,  "  that  their  language  is  to  be  understood 
in  a  less  objectionable  sense  than  what  the  words  at  first  sight  seem  to 
require ;  for  these,  if  taken  in  their  ordinary  signification,  would 
manifest  the  greatest  folly."     It  may  be  made  a  question,  however. 


viii  ADDITIONAL   NOTES. 

contemplated    by    God  in  the  work  of  creation.      In  like 

whether  it  is  less  to  the  credit  of  a  writer  to  be  a  mystic  and  to  write 
mystically,  or  to  have  intelligible  ideas,  but  to  be  unable  or  unwilling 
to  put  them  forth  without  giving  them  the  air  of  absurdities. 

Mosheini  was  of  a  higher  order  of  intellect  than  the  modern  expos- 
itors of  Plato  among  his  countrymen,  with  whom  I  am  acquainted. 
The  German  mind,  as  it  has  been  lately  exhibited,  has,  for  the  most 
part,  shown  itself  unqualified  for  the  explanation  of  ancient  philoso- 
phy. For  this,  the  power  of  distinguishing  between  sense  and  non- 
sense is  an  essential  requisite.  But  in  the  later  expositions  of  the 
Platonic  philosophy,  to  which  I  refer,  ancient  and  modern  mysticism 
have  run  together,  and  formed  strange  combinations,  in  which,  how- 
ever, the  modern  element  preponderates.  Tennemann,  in  his  differ- 
ent works,  has  converted  the  Athenian  philosopher  into  a  German 
metaphysician.  In  his  hands,  Plato's  Ideas  become  Ideas  of  Pure  Rea- 
son (in  the  dialect  of  Kant),  "  not  having  their  origin  in  experience, 
but  in  the  nature  of  the  soul  "  :  "  the  Divine  idea  being  the  object  of 
the  human,  the  first  intelligible  object  of  the  reason."  (Geschichte 
der  Philosophie,  II.  252,  371.)  But  however  uninstructive  may  be 
Tennemann's  accounts  of  Plato's  philosophy,  we  shall  perceive  that 
we  have  made  a  descent  in  the  region  of  intellect,  when  we  pass  from 
them  to  that  of  the  later  historian  of  philosophy,  Ritter.  His  exposi- 
tion of  it  has  the  characteristics  which  belong  to  the  writings  of  many 
of  his  countrymen  at  the  present  day.  The  conceptions  are  so  ob- 
scure and  unformed,  there  is  such  want  of  skill  in  the  use  of  lan- 
guage, the  modes  of  expression  are  so  imperfect,  and  the  terms  so 
undefined  in  their  signification,  that  the  show  of  meaning  presented 
continually  eludes  us,  and  we  proceed  like  travellers  following  a  mi- 
rage in  a  desert.  One  may  judge  of  his  incapacity  for  thinking  clearly 
by  the  degree  in  which  he  fancies  himself  to  understand  such  writers. 

One  of  the  latest  German  expositors  of  Plato,  Stallbaum,  in  the 
Prolegomena  to  his  edition  of  the  Parmenides  (p.  4),  after  saying  that 
he  shall  "  aim  at  the  greatest  perspicuity  of  thought  and  expression, 
and  not  endeavour  to  gain  the  praise  of  talent  or  learning  by  subtile 
commentaries  remote  from  the  truth,"  proceeds  thus  to  give  a  char- 
acter of  his  fellow-laborers:  —  "  Grassari  sane  hoc  malum,"  —  the  evil 
of  o-iving  subtile  commentaries  remote  from  the  truth  —  "  nostra  tetate 
ccDpit  incredibiliter  ;  id  quod  ipsi  facile  animadvertimus  in  legendis  iis 
scriptis,  qucD  nuper  de  Parmenide  Platonico  edila  sunt.     In  quibus, 


PLATO'S   DOCTRINE  OF  IDEAS.  ix 

manner,  he  represents  them  as  having  been  contemplated 
by  the  souls  of  men  in  their  preexistent  state.*  As  being 
the  generic  forms  of  things,  he  regarded  them  as  the  only 
objects  of  true  knowledge.  The  acquisition  of  such  knowl- 
edge consists,  according  to  him,  in  awakening  the  remi- 
niscences of  them  lying  dormant  in  the  mind.  His  doc- 
trine, often  repeated,  was,  that  "  Our  learning  is  nothing  but 
recollection."  t  This  doctrine,  that  the  true  knowledge 
possessed  by  the  mind  is  not  here  acquired,  but  only  recol- 
lected, was  his  main  argument  for  the  preexistence  of  the 
soul,  with  which  his  doctrine  of  its  immortality  was  inti- 
mately connected.  \  The  following  is  a  passage  from  the 
Phasdo:  —  "  What,  then,  asked  Socrates,  do  you  say  concern- 
ing that  doctrine  which  we  advanced,  that  learning  is  recol- 
lection ;  and  that,  this  being  so,  our  soul  must  necessarily 
have  existed  somewhere  else  before  it  was  confined  in  the 
body  }  I  was  thoroughly  convinced  of  it,  said  Cebes,  and 
am  not  more  assured  of  any  thing.  And  I,  said  Simmias, 
am  of  the  same  opinion."  § 

Conformably  to  the  passages  which  I  have  quoted  from 
the  Timeeus,  Plato  uniformly  describes  his  Ideas,  or  the  ge- 
neric forms  of  things,  as  subsisting  by  themselves.  Thus  he 
teaches,  that  there  "  is  a  certain  Fire  [the  generic  Idea  of 
Fire]  subsisting  by  itself,  ||  and  so  with  regard  to  all  other 
things  of  which  we  constantly  speak  as  subsisting  by  them- 
selves."^ "There  is  one  form  of  being,"  he  says,  "al- 
ways  the   same,    unproduced    and    indestructible,   neither 

profecto,  ssepenumero  ambigas,  magisne  mireris  fingendi  comminis- 
cendique  impudentiam,  an  Latini  et  Germanici  sermonis  spurciticm, 
quae  apud  quosdam  tanta  est,  ut  ne  unam  quidem  sententiam  reperias, 
quaj  non  turpissimis  inquinata  sit  balbutientis  barbariae  vitiis." 

*  Phaedrus,  p.  247,  seqq.  t  Phaedo,  p.  72. 

X  Phaedo,  pp,  72-77.     Meno,  p.  61,  seqq.         §  Phaedo,  pp.  91,  92. 

II  *EoTt  Tt  TTvp  avTo  60'  eavTov.  If  Avra  Ka6^  avra. 

VOL.    III.  44 


X  ADDITIONAL   NOTES. 

receiving  any  thing  foreign  into  itself,  nor  passing  to  any 
thing  without  itself,  not  perceptible  by  the  sight  nor  by  any 
of  the  senses,  which  it  belongs  to  the  intellect  to  contem- 
plate";—  and  with  this  he  proceeds  immediately  to  con- 
trast those  forms  of  being,  its  similitudes,  which  exist  in  the 
sensible  world.  *  As  I  have  before  said,  he  uniformly 
regards  these  Ideas,  when  compared  with  sensible  things, 
as  the  only  real  existences.  Thus  he  says, —  "  The  Equal, 
the  Beautiful,  every  thing  which  has  a  real  existence,!  ad- 
mits of  no  change  whatever.  Every  one  of  these  things 
possessing  real  existence,  having  a  single  form,  subsisting 
by  itself,  continues  always  the  same."| 

Besides  Cudworth,  other  modern  expositors  of  Plato  have 
contended  that  his  Ideas  are  ideas  in  the  modern  sense  of 
the  term,  existing  in  the  mind  of  God  and  in  the  human 
mind.  But  such  language  as  has  been  quoted  from  him 
seems  wholly  irreconcilable  with  this  supposition.  Ideas 
which  he  represents  as  constituting  the  ideal  world,  the 
counterpart  of  the  sensible,  as  living  and  divine  beings,  as 
subsisting  by  themselves,  as  real  existences,  he  could  not 
have  conceived  of  as  ideas  either  of  the  Divine  or  of  the 
human  mind  in  the  now  common  sense  of  the  word  "  idea." 
It  is  imputing  something  more  than  obscurity  and  mysticism 
to  a  writer  to  suppose  that  he  commonly  states  a  character- 
istic doctrine  of  his  philosophy  in  words  that  are  inconsis- 
tent with  his  real  meaning. 

It  may,  indeed,  be  doubted,  whether  any  passage  can  be 
produced  from  the  writings  of  Plato,  in  which  he  uses  the 
word  'l8ea,  Idea,  properly  Image,  or  its  equivalent,  EtSo?, 

*  Timaeus,  pp.  51,52. 

t  Aiiro  iKacTTov,  o  icrri.  to  ov.  Plato  just  before  speaks  of  avrfi  17 
ovcri'a  rjs  \6yov  8i8ofi(v  tov  ehai,  —  "  that  form  of  being  which  we 
define  as  what  exists." 

t  Pha^do,  p.  78. 


PLATO'S   DOCTRINE  OF  IDEAS.  xi 

Form,  to  denote  what  is  expressed  by  our  word  "  idea," 
namely,  a  subject  of  thought  considered  merely  as  existing 
in  the  mind.  Those  words  he  uses  to  denote  an  external 
object  of  thought ;  and  though  the  transition  is  easy  from 
the  latter  meaning  to  the  former,  yet  it  was  not,  to  say  the 
least,  familiar  to  Plato.  We  use  the  term  "  idea  "  to  denote 
a  subject  of  thought  of  whatever  kind,  general  or  particular. 
The  primary  sense  ascribed  to  it  by  Plato  in  relation  to  his 
theory  of  Ideas  was  altogether  different.  By  his  Ideas  or 
Images,  he  means  the  types  of  the  respective  classes  of  be- 
ings and  qualities.*  The  only  question  is,  whether  he  con- 
sidered these  as  simply  ideal  types  (in  our  sense  of  the 
word  "  ideal"),  existing  primarily  in  the  mind  of  God,  and 
to  be  discerned  by  the  human  intellect ;  or  whether  he  con- 
sidered them  as  proper  beings,  subsisting  by  themselves,  as 
he  has  so  often  described  them. 

Plato  treats  of  his  doctrine  of  Ideas  in  the  latter  part  of 
the  sixth  and  the  beginning  of  the  seventh  book  of  his  Re- 
public. He  introduces  an  allegory,  in  which  he  represents 
men  as  so  confined  in  a  cavern  as  to  be  able  to  see  only  a 
succession  of  shadows  passing  over  the  side  of  it  opposite 
to  them.  These  shadows  he  supposes  to  be  produced  by  a 
train  of  real  objects  moving  along  the  top  of  a  wall  behind 
those  who  are  thus  confined.  The  shadows,  according  to 
him,  correspond  to  the  fleeting  semblances  of  eternal  Ideas, 
which  alone  can  be  discerned  in  the  sensible  world.  The 
real  objects  are  the  eternal  Ideas  themselves.  The  light 
which  casts  those  shadows  is  the  Sun.t  The  Sun  is  "  the 
offspring  of  The  Good,"  that  is,  of  the  universal  Idea  of 

*  In  the  old  logical  nomenclature  the  term  "being"  is  applied  to 
qualities  as  well  as  to  substances ;  but  it  is  more  convenient,  and  more 
conformable  to  the  popular  use  of  language,  to  confine  its  application 
to  the  latter. 

t  De  Republic^,  Lib.  VII.  p.  514,  seqq. 


xii  ADDITIONAL  NOTES. 

Good.  *  "  It  resembles  the  being  which  produced  it.  In 
the  intelligible  region  The  Good  bears  the  sanae  relation  to 
intellect  and  the  objects  of  intellect,  which  the  Sun  bears  to 
sight  and  the  objects  of  sight  in  the  visible  world."  In  one 
of  those  passages  which  undoubtedly  prepared  the  way  for 
Gnosticism,  Plato  goes  on  to  teach,  that  over  the  two  classes 
of  beings,  the  intelligible  and  the  visible,  there  are  two 
rulers,  the  Idea  of  Good  over  the  intelligible,  and  the  Sun 
over  the  visible.!  The  Idea  of  Good  he  thus  identifies 
with  the  Deity.  He  says  :  — "  Among  things  knowable,  the 
Idea  of  Good  is  the  last,  and  hardly  to  be  discerned  ;  |  but, 
when  discerned,  it  evidently  appears  to  be  the  cause  of  all 
things  right  and  beautiful  in  the  universe ;  in  the  visible 
world  producing  light  and  the  lord  of  light  [the  Sun],  and 
being  itself  the  ruler  in  the  intelligible  world,  the  source  of 
truth  and  intellect."  § 

There  is  another  passage  of  Plato  which  throws  a  strong 
liaht  on  his  doctrine  of  Ideas,  It  is  in  the  tenth  book  of  his 
Republic.  |1  He  is  treating  of  the  imitative  arts,  which  it 
is  here  his  purpose  to  degrade  by  representing  them  as  giv- 
ing only  copies  of  copies  of  what  really  exists.  He  illus- 
trates his  meaning  by  the  homely  example  of  the  picture  of 
a  bed,  or  a  couch  for  reclining  on  at  table. ^  "  There  are 
three  beds,"  he  says ;  "  one  existing  in  nature,  which,  I 
think,  we  may  assert  to  be  the  work  of  God  ;  one  produced 
by  the  human  workman  ;  and  one  that  of  the  painter." 
God,  he  teaches,  has  formed  but  one  bed  alone,  that  which 


*  In  this  discussion  Plato  uses  indiscriminately  TayaOov,  "  The 
Good,"  and  rj  iSe'a  tov  'Ayadov,  "  the  Idea  of  Good,"  as  synony- 
mous. 

t  De  Republica,  Lib.  VI.  pp.  508,509. 

t  See  before,  p.  24. 

§   De  Republica,  Lib.  VII.  p.  517. 

II  Pp.  596,  597.  Tf  KXivt). 


PLATO'S  DOCTRINE  OF  IDEAS.  xiii 

really  exists,*  the  archetypal  Idea  of  a  bed.  The  human 
workman  does  not  make  the  Idea,  which  is  the  real  bed,  but 
something  like  that  which  really  exists,t  and  of  his  work 
the  painter  only  gives  a  copy.  J 

*  'O  Qfos,  ^ov\6fj.€vos  fivai  ovtws  KXiinjy  TroirjTrjs  ovrios  ovcttjs. 

f  'O  kXivottoios  0X1  to  eidos  noiel  o  8r]  (^a^iiv  elvai  o  eari  kXivt), 

aXXa  Kkivqv  Tiva Ovk  av  ro  ov  Trotot,  aXXd  ti  toiovtov 

olov  TO  ov,  Of  Se  oi'. 

i  We  must  understand  Plato  as  meaning  by  his  Ideas  either  Images 
subsisting  by  themselves,  a  representation  to  which  his  own  language, 
and  that  of  his  opponents  and  of  his  followers,  fully  correspond ;  or 
we  must  understand  him  as  meaning  by  them  nothing  more  than  ab- 
stract, general  ideas,  in  the  now  common  sense  of  that  term.  But 
putting  out  of  view  what  I  conceive  to  be  the  impossibility  of  recon- 
ciling the  latter  supposition  with  the  language  of  Plato,  the  question 
remains  to  be  answered,  What  was  it  which  constituted  his  doctrine 
of  Ideas  a  distinguishing  characteristic  of  his  philosophy,  if  he  meant 
by  his  Ideas  nothing  more  than  general  ideas  in  the  common  sense  of 
those  words  ?  That  doctrine  was  called  by  the  Platonist  Atticus  (in 
the  second  century)  "  the  chief  and  fundamental  doctrine  of  his  pe- 
culiar philosophy  "  ;  —  To  Se  Ke(j)aKaiov  Koi  to  Kvpos  ttjs  HXaTavos 
alpeaecos,  rj  rrepi  tSjv  vorjTav  fiiara^ty.  ( Apud  Eusebii  Prteparat. 
Evang.  Lib.  XV.  §  13.  p.  815.)  Seneca  (Epist.  58)  calls  it  "the 
proper  household  furniture"  (propria  supellex)  of  Plato.  Similar 
language  has  been  continued  to  our  own  day.  By  Stallbaum  it  is  said 
to  be  velut  arx  atque  caput  totius  ejus  disciplina,  "  the  citadel,  as  it 
were,  and  head  of  his  whole  doctrine."  But  all  philosophy  is  conver- 
sant about  general  ideas.  Without  them  there  can  be  no  philosophy. 
In  recognizing  their  existence,  therefore,  there  could  be  nothing  pe- 
culiar in  the  philosophy  of  Plato.  These  are  statements  so  obvi- 
ous, that,  at  first  view,  it  may  seem  idle  thus  formally  to  announce 
them. 

It  may,  however,  be  said,  that  the  pecuharity  in  Plato's  philosophy 
consisted  in  his  maintaining,  that  general  ideas  are  not  to  be  acquired 
in  this  world  of  the  senses,  but  that  the  soul  brings  them  with  her 
from  a  preexistent  state,  and  that  all  true  knowledge  consists  in  rec- 
ollecting these  ideas  as  the  soul  has  formerly  possessed  them.  This 
doctrine  may  be  regarded  as  peculiar ;  but  it  cannot  serve  for  the  ba- 


xiv  ADDITIONAL  NOTES. 

To  the  notion  of  Plato,  that  Ideas  constitute  the  essences 
of  sensible  things,  I  shall  advert  hereafter.  In  reference  to 
what  we  have  gone  over,  it  may  be  observed,  that  Plato 
does  not  represent  his  Ideas,  or  archetypal  Images,  as  exist- 
ing in  the  mind  of  God,  but  as  subsisting  by  themselves. 
The  Idea  of  Good,  as  we  have  seen,  he  converts  into  the 
Supreme  Divinity.  In  analogy  with  this,  we  might  suppose 
that  he  hypostatized  his  other  Ideas,  and  thus  made  an  in- 
definite number  of  inferior  conscious  gods.  But  I  do  not 
presume  that  any  such  consistency  is  to  be  looked  for  in  his 
speculations.  Nor,  though  he  speaks  of  his  Ideas  as  living 
beings  and  gods,  do  I  think  that  he  has  made  it  manifest 
that  he  regarded  them,  generally,  as  proper  persons ;  for,  in 
calling  them  "  gods,"  he  may  have  meant  only  to  ascribe  to 
them  divine  power.  The  transition  from  the  conception  of 
them  as  beings  animate  and  divine  to  the  conception  of 
them  as  beings  endued  wiih  consciousness  and  will  is  but 
a  step  ;  but  it  is  a  step  that  involves  a  new  plunge  into  mys- 
ticism, which  it  is  not  certain  that  Plato  made.  It  was 
made,  however,  by  his  followers  in  later  times.  Philo  con- 
founded the  Ideas  of  Plato  with  the  hypostatized  powers  of 
God,  and  represents  the  whole  archetypal  world  as  the  hy- 
postatized Logos.*  The  theosophic  Gnostics,  in  like  man- 
sis  of  a  system  of  philosophy.  The  fact  announced  by  it  cannot  be 
applied  to  the  decision  of  any  question  that  admits  of  doubt.  If  there 
be  a  controversy  respecting  the  true  nature  of  any  general  idea;  if 
individuals  differ,  for  instance,  concerning  the  nature  of  virtue,  or 
what  constitutes  an  action  virtuous,  each  may  appeal  with  equal  con- 
fidence to  the  accuracy  of  his  own  recollections ;  and  there  can  be 
nothing  to  decide  between  them.  If  all  true  knowledge  consists  in 
the  recollection  of  what  was  known  to  the  soul  in  a  preiixistent  state, 
it  would  seem  that  only  two  important  conclusions  can  be  drawn  from 
this  fact,  —  one,  which  Plato  does  infer,  that  the  soul  has  preexisted, 
and  the  other,  that  all  exercise  of  reason  is  useless  in  the  acquisition 
of  knowledge. 

'  See  Statement  of  Reasons,  pp  2G1  -  266. 


PLATO'S   DOCTRINE  OF  IDEAS.  xv 

ner,  regarded  them  as  being  at  once  ideas  belonging  to  the 
mind  of  God  and  proper  persons.  Throughout  the  writings 
of  the  later  Platonists,  these  Ideas  appear  as  living  beings, 
gods,  and  persons,  but  at  the  same  time  as  existing  in  the 
second  hypostasis  of  their  Trinity.* 

Plato's  doctrine  concerning  Ideas  had  a  wide  influence  on 
opinion  in  ancient  times.  Nor  has  its  influence  ceased  in 
our  own.  The  obvious  remark,  that  it  rests,  and  can  rest, 
on  no  proof,  may  seem  strange  and  out  of  place.  It  is 
bringing  it  into  collision  with  modes  of  thinking  with  which 
it  has  nothing  to  do.  It  is  a  remark  of  much  the  same 
kind,  as  if  one  were  to  say  that  there  is  no  historical  au- 
thority for  the  stories  of  Ariosto.  But,  putting  this  want 
of  evidence  out  of  view,  if  we  attempt  to  reduce  the  doc- 
trine of  Plato  to  an  intelligible  form,  we  find  ourselves  en- 
countered on  every  side  by  absurdities  and  inconsistencies. 

The  Ideas  of  Plato  are  images.  Now  there  are  many 
objects  of  which  we  may  imagine  an  archetypal  model. 
We  may  imagine,  for  instance,  a  generic,  standard.  Idea  of 
man,  to  which  living  men  more  or  less  approximate.  But, 
even  in  regard  to  this  simplest  mode  of  apprehending  what 
was  in  the  mind  of  Plato,  we  cannot  imagine  an  archetypal 
model  of  a  man,  abstracted  from  the  peculiarities  of  any 
particular  age.  In  attempting  to  proceed  in  the  application 
of  his  doctrine  to  qualities,  we  are  immediately  arrested. 
He  often  speaks  of  the  Idea  of  the  Beautiful,  —  of  The 
Beautiful  in  the  abstract.  But  we  cannot  conceive  of  an 
abstract  image  of  the  Beautiful,  conformed  to  no  particular 
beauty,  but  equally  to  the  beauty  of  moral  actions,  of  man, 
of  the  inferior  animals,  and  of  inanimate  nature.  We  may 
personify  Virtue  poetically,  as  an  object  of  the  imagination  ; 
but,  as  an  object  of  the  understanding,  we  can  make  no  im- 

*  See  Cudworth's  Intellectual  System,  Ch.  4.  §  36. 


xvi  ADDITIONAL  NOTES. 

age  of  the  abstract  idea  of  virtue.  All  images  conceived  by 
the  mind  have  a  form ;  but  we  can  give  no  form  to  Plato's 
abstract  Idea  of  Unity. 

The  Ideas  or  Images  of  Plato  exist,  according  to  him, 
by  themselves,  out  of  any  mind.  What  we  can  properly 
conceive  of  only  as  the  accidents  of  mind  are  thus  repre- 
sented by  him  as  existing  separately  from  mind.  The 
absurdity  will  not  be  lessened,  should  we  suppose  that  he 
did  not  regard  them  as  existing  separately  from  mind,  but 
that,  in  common  with  his  followers  who  lived  centuries  after 
his  death,  he  converted  the  ideas  in  the  mind  of  God  into 
substances,  living  beings,  and  gods. 

Again,  Plato  represents  his  Ideas  as  existing  apart  from 
any  thing  else,  always  the  same,  admitting  no  change,  neither 
receiving  any  thing  foreign  into  themselves,  nor  passing  in- 
to any  thing  without  themselves  ;  *  and  yet  these  same  Ideas 
he  also  represents  as  in  some  way  acting  on  matter  and  con- 
stituting the  essences  of  sensible  things.  In  what  manner 
he  imagined  this  might  be,  he  does  not  explain.  He  puts 
the  following  words  into  the  mouih  of  Socrates: — "I  sup- 
pose that  there  is  something  beautiful  by  itself,  and  some- 
thing good,  and  something  great,  and  so  with  regard  to  all 

other   things It  appears  to  me  that  whatever  is 

beautiful,  besides  The  Beautiful  itself,  becomes  so  only  by 

partaking  of  The  Beautiful Should  any  one  tell  me 

that  a  thing  is  beautiful  either  on  account  of  its  fine  color, 
or  its  form,  or  any  thing  of  like  sort,  I  dismiss  all  these  rea- 
sons, for  they  only  perplex  me,  and  simply,  directly,  and 
perhaps  foolishly,  hold  to  this,  that  there  is  no  other  cause 
why  it  is  beautiful  except  the  presence  of  The  Beautiful,  or 
its  being  associated  with  it.f     Of  the  mode  I  as  yet  affirm 

*  See  before,  pp.  ix-x. 

f  ToO  KoXov  e'lre  Trapovaia,  e'lTt  Koivoivia,  ei're  oirq  8tj  koi  ottcos 
TrpocryfVOfievT).      As  the  text   of    the   last  clause  is  apparently  cor- 


PLATO'S  DOCTRINE  OF  IDEAS.  xvii 

nothing,  but  only  that  all  beautiful  things  become  beautiful 
by  means  of  The  Beautiful."  *  This  doctrine  Socrates  is 
represented  as  illustrating,  till  all  his  hearers  agree,  "  that 
each  of  the  several  Ideas  exists,  and  that  other  things  bear 
their  names  through  participation  of  them."  t  This  is  in 
the  Phsedo.  The  same  doctrine  is  insisted  upon  in  the 
Timceus  ;  where,  in  speaking  of  primitive  matter,  it  is 
taught,  that  "the  resemblances  of  those  things  which  eter- 
nally exist,  impressed  by  them  in  a  wonderful  manner,  hard 
to  be  explained,  enter  into  and  depart  from  primitive  mat- 
ter," constituting  its  sensible  forms ;  and  that  thus,  "  in  a 
way  very  difficult  to  be  understood,  primitive  matter  par- 
takes of  the  intelligible."  | 

To  this  account  of  Plato's  theory  respecting  Ideas  as  con- 
stituting sensible  qualities,  it  would  seem  as  if  nothing 
could  be  added  to  illustrate  the  character  of  his  speculations 
under  the  aspect  in  which  we  are  now  regarding  them. 
But  the  concluding  argument  for  the  immortality  of  the 
soul  in  his  Phsedo  rests  on  a  discussion  concerning  the 
changes  of  sensible  qualities  in  material  things.  According 
to  what  is  there  maintained,  when  a  quality  is  changed  into 
its  opposite,  as  heat,  for  example,  into  cold,  the  Idea  consti- 
tuting in  the  sensible  object  the  quality  changed,  not  admit- 
ting the  Idea  of  its  opposite,  either  flies  off  or  perishes.§ 
This  conception  is  plainly  expressed  by  Plato,  is  dwelt  upon 
and  illustrated,  and  is  essential  to  his  reasoning.  But  with 
this  conception  are  to  be  compared  his  descriptions,  before 
quoted,  of  eternal,  unchangeable  Ideas,  passing  into  nothing 
without  themselves. 

But  it  may  be  said,  that  we  are  not  to  understand  the 

rupt,  and,  however  it  may  be  understood,  adds  nothing  essential  to  the 
meaning,  I  have  not  attempted  to  translate  it. 

*  PhtEdo,  p.  100.  t  Ibid.  p.  102.  i  Timceus,  pp.  50.  51. 

§  Phsedo,  pp.  102-106. 

VOL.  in.  45 


xviii  ADDITIONAL   NOTES. 

words  of  Plato  in  their  obvious  sense.  It  may  be  contend- 
ed, that,  in  affirming  that  ideas  in  some  inexplicable  man- 
ner constitute  the  essences  of  sensible  things,  he  meant 
nothing  more  than  that  God,  having  these  ideas  in  his  mind, 
impressed  them  upon  matter,  —  the  idea  of  beauty,  for  in- 
stance, on  all  things  beautiful.  It  is  not  necessary  to  discuss 
the  question,  whether  this  supposition  can  be  reconciled  with 
his  language.  Were  the  supposition  true,  it  would  follow 
that  what  has  been  regarded  as  a  characteristic  doctrine  of 
his  philosophy  consists  in  the  enunciation,  in  very  unsuit- 
able language,  of  the  proposition,  that  sensible  things  are 
beautiful  because  God  made  them  beautiful ;  and  in  teach- 
ing that  no  further  explanation  is  to  be  given  of  the  matter. 
At  the  same  time,  according  to  this  mode  of  understanding 
him,  his  machinery  of  ideas  becomes  useless.  Nor  will  a 
more  important  doctrine  be  ascribed  to  him,  if  it  be  main- 
tained that  his  meaning  was,  that  particular  things  are  beau- 
tiful because  they  partake  of  the  abstract  idea  of  beauty,  — 
the  last  words  being  understood  in  their  common  significa- 
tion. On  the  contrary,  we  shall  only  have  introduced  a  new 
absurdity  by  representing  sensible  things  as  partaking  of  an 
abstract  idea.  Or  should  it  be  said  that  this  expression, 
"  partaking  of  an  idea,"  is  not  to  be  understood  in  a  literal 
sense,  but  in  a  looser  signification,  it  would  seem  that  the 
meaning  can  be  only,  that  beautiful  things  are  beautiful 
because  they  partake  of  beauty. 

We  may  not  agree  with  the  doctrine  of  Berkeley,  that 
there  are,  properly  speaking,  no  abstract  general  ideas,  and 
that  what  have  been  regarded  as  such  are  only  particular 
ideas,  taken  as  representatives  of  the  whole  class  to  which 
they  belong.  This  doctrine  seems  to  have  resulted  from 
confounding  an  idea  with  an  image  existing  in  the  mind. 
But  if  we  mean  by  an  idea  merely  a  subject  of  thought, 
there  can  be  no  question  about  the  existence  of  abstract 


PLATO'S   DOCTRINE  OF  IDEAS.  xix 

ideas.  We  may  reason,  and  consequently  think,  about  vir- 
tue, or  the  quality  which  constitutes  actions  morally  good, 
without  having  in  mind  the  particular  idea  of  any  virtuous 
man.  I  do  not  say,  of  any  virtuous  action,  or  of  any  single 
virtue,  because  these  are  themselves  abstract  ideas.  We 
may  discuss  Berkeley's  own  doctrine,  that  there  is  no  ground 
for  distinguishing  between  color  and  extension  by  denoting 
the  former  a  secondary  and  the  latter  a  primary  property  of 
matter,  without  having  in  our  minds  the  idea  of  any  partic- 
ular color,  or  any  particular  form  of  extension,  or  any  par- 
ticular mass  of  matter,  —  not  to  advert  to  any  other  of  the 
general  ideas  involved  in  that  statement.  But  it  will  not 
be  maintained,  that,  in  discussing  the  doctrine,  neither  color, 
nor  extension,  nor  matter  is  a  subject  of  thought.  We  can- 
not, however,  hesitate  to  agree  with  Berkeley,  so  far  as  to 
admit  the  fact,  that  there  can  be  no  image  of  an  abstract 
idea ;  and  this  fact  shows,  that,  wide  as  has  been  the  influ- 
ence of  Plato's  doctrine  of  Ideas,  it  is  impossible  to  form  a 
coherent  imagination  of  it.* 


*  There  are  two  ways  in  which  such  a  theory  as  that  of  Plato  may 
be  considered.  It  may  be  surveyed,  as  it  were,  from  a  distance,  and 
regarded  in  its  various  relations,  under  the  broad  light  of  reason ;  or 
one  may  confine  his  views  to  those  of  the  writer,  enter  into  the  sphere 
of  his  conceptions,  and  meet  him  on  his  own  ground.  It  is  in  the  lat- 
ter mode  that  the  theory  of  Plato  is  considered  in  the  Dialogue  called 
"  Parmenides,"  from  the  name  of  the  principal  speaker,  —  a  dialogue 
which,  since  about  five  centuries  after  the  death  of  Plato,  has  been 
commonly  ascribed  to  that  philosopher  himself;  but  which  I  believe 
to  have  been  written  by  one  of  his  contemporaries  in  confutation  and 
ridicule  of  his  doctrine  of  Ideas.  It  is,  I  conceive,  a  persevering  and 
destructive  assault  upon  that  doctrine,  though  after  a  fashion  of  rea- 
soning altogether  remote  from  that  of  the  present  day.  The  course 
of  argument  pursued  in  it  is  very  narrow,  so  that  no  general  truth  is 
•illustrated.  It  is  unnecessarily  diffuse,  and  there  is  much  mere  verbal 
subtilty  and  sophistry.     But  an  ironical  tone  runs  through  it;  and  the 


XX  ADDITIONAL  NOTES. 

The  Ideas  of  Plato  belonged  to  the  class  of  intelligible 
beings;  and  to  the  same  class,  conformably  to  his  use  of 

question  may  often  arise,  whether  the  author  be  not  sporting  with  his 
subject,  without  any  other  purpose  than  to  perplex  and  confound  an 
opponent.  In  its  general  character,  the  Parmenides  is  very  unlike 
a  dialogue  of  Plato.  It  has  no  ornaments  and  no  digressions.  The 
business  in  hand  is  kept  steadily  in  view.  The  writer  does  not  con- 
duct us  through  indirect  approaches  to  his  subject,  and  then,  after 
affording  a  glimpse  of  it,  turn  off  in  another  direction. 

The  point  against  which  the  author  first  directs  his  attack  is  the 
doctrine  of  Plato,  that  Ideas  constitute  in  some  way  the  essences  of 
things.  The  discussion  of  this  doctrine  is  represented  as  having  been 
carried  on  between  Parmenides  and  Socrates.  The  object  of  the 
writer  is  to  show  that  the  theory  is  untenable,  whatever  form  it  may 
assume,  or  in  whatever  way  it  may  be  explained.  One  hypothesis  is 
stated  after  another,  and  Socrates  is  driven  to  abandon  them  all. 
(pp.  130-133.)  Parmenides  then,  by  a  dexterous  management  of 
words,  is  represented  as  bringing  him  fully  to  admit,  that,  supposing 
Ideas  to  exist  apart  from  sensible  things,  we  can  have  no  knowledge 
of  them  whatever;  or,  as  it  is  expressed  by  the  writer,  that  only  a 
wonderfully  able  person  can  learn  or  teach  any  thing  concerning  them, 
(pp.  133-135.) 

Socrates  is  described  as  being,  at  the  time  of  this  discussion,  a 
young  man.  It  may  be  conjectured  that  it  was  the  purpose  of  the 
writer  of  the  Parmenides  to  imply,  that  the  doctrine  of  Ideas,  which 
Plato^  ascribes  to  Socrates  in  his  Phaedo,  could  have  been  held  by 
Socrates  only  when  his  mind  was  yet  unformed  and  his  judgment 
immature.  Parmenides,  at  the  conclusion  of  this  portion  of  the  Dia- 
logue, is  represented  as  complimenting  Socrates  on  his  natural  capaci- 
ty, and  on  his  zeal  for  discussion,  but  as  admonishing  him  for  under- 
taking to  determine  too  much  before  he  had  acquired  the  requisite 
dialectical  skill, —  that  skill,  says  Parmenides,  which  to  many  seems 
useless  and  trifling,  (p.  135.)  If  I  have  rightly  conceived  the  char- 
acter of  the  Dialogue,  this  tone  of  superiority  and  admonition  was 
meant  for  Plato  himself;  and  the  praise  of  dialectical  skill,  in  which 
the  sophists  regarded  themselves  as  excelling,  was  intended  as  a  retort 
for  the  attacks  upon  them  by  him,  and  his  master,  Socrates. 

Such  is  the  commencement  of  the  discussion.  But  Parmenides  is 
represented  as  being  persuaded  to  continue  it,  not  with  Socrates,  who 


PLATO'S  DOCTRINE  OF  IDEAS.  xxi 

language,  belonged  all  those  beings  which  we  regard  as  not 
objects  of  the  senses,  —  as  spiritual  beings.      The  latter 

is  silenced,  but  with  another  young  man  whom  he  questions.  The 
two  problems  now  proposed  are,  What  will  follow  upon  the  supposi- 
tion of  the  existence  of  Ideas  (Platonic  Ideas)  ?  and  What  will  follow 
upon  the  supposition  of  their  non-existence  ?  In  regard  to  the  first 
question,  the  manner  in  which  they  are  considered  may  be  thus  ex- 
plained. 

These  abstract  Ideas,  subsistent  by  themselves,  must  be  simply  the 
abstract  Ideas  of  classes  of  beings  and  qualities.  They  are  such 
Ideas  and  nothing  more.  Nothing  else  is  predicable' of  them.  The 
abstract  Idea  of  Beauty  is  nothing  but  the  abstract  Idea  of  Beauty. 
The  writer  illustrates  the  absurdities  which  are  inherent  in  such  an 
hypothesis  by  taking  the  Idea  of  Unity  (  To  "Bv,  The  One.)  Of  this 
nothing  can  be  affirmed  but  that  it  is  the  Idea  of  Unity.  By  affirming 
any  thing  else  concerning  it,  another  Idea  is  connected  with  it.  It 
ceases  to  be  simply  the  Idea  of  Unity.  But  if  nothing  else  can  be 
predicated  of  it,  every  thing  else  may  be  denied  concerning  it.  The 
conclusion  that  follows  would  be  arrived  at  by  a  modern  reasoner  in  a 
few  words ;  but  Parmenides  takes  his  way  to  it  through  a  series  of 
questions,  somewhat  amusing  from  their  subtilty.  The  conclusion  is, 
that  existence  cannot  be  predicated  of  the  Idea  of  Unity.  Conse- 
quently (on  the  theory  of  Ideas),  there  can  be  no  such  thing  as  unity. 
"  But  is  it  possible,"  asks  Parmenides,  "  that  such  can  be  the  fact  re- 
specting Unity  .'  "  "  Not,  as  it  seems  to  me,"  answers  the  young  man 
whom  he  has  been  questioning,  (pp.  137-142.) 

Parmenides  then  starts  afresh,  on  the  supposition  that  the  Idea  of 
Unity  exists.  But  if  Unity  exist,  another  Idea,  that  of  Existence,  is 
inseparably  connected  with  it.  It  remains  no  longer  a  simple,  but 
becomes  a  twofold  Idea.  It  consists  of  the  Idea  of  Unity  and  the 
Idea  of  Existence.     By  the  latter  it  is  also  constituted  a  proper  being. 

Of  the  Idea  of  Unity,  simply  considered,  nothing  could  be  predicat- 
ed. But  of  the  Idea  of  Unity,  considered  as  connected  with  the  Idea 
of  Existence,  many  things  may  be  predicated  ;  and  it  is  the  purpose 
of  the  writer,  which  he  pursues  at  much  length,  to  show  that  many 
things  may  be  predicated  of  it,  which  are  inconsistent  with  the  Idea 
of  Unity  and  contradictory  to  each  other.  Thus  he  arrives  at  last  at 
the  conclusion,  that  Unity,  The  One,  is  all  things,  and  that  there  is 
no  such  thing  as  Unity. 


xxii  ADDITIONAL   NOTES. 

were  blended  with  those  subsistent,  hving  abstractions,  of 
which  we  cannot  even  form  a  conception.      As  we  have 

The  supposition,  that  the  Platonic  Idea  of  Unity  exists,  is  thus  re- 
duced to  an  absurdity,  or  rather,  in  the  course  of  the  discussion,  to  a 
succession  of  absurdities,     (pp.  142 -IGO.) 

From  this  portion  of  the  work  we  pass  to  the  concluding  part  (pp. 
IGO-IGG),  which  treats  of  "  what  will  follow,  if  the  Idea  of  Unity 
does  not  exist."  The  purpose  of  the  writer,  so  far  as  it  regards  his 
argument,  may  be  thus  explained.  It  having  been  proved  that  the 
Platonic  Idea  of  Unity  does  not  exist,  it  follows,  on  the  theory  of  Ideas, 
that  there  is  no  unity  in  nature,  or,  in  other  words,  that  there  is  no 
being  of  which  we  may  affirm  that  it  is  one  being  and  not  many. 
The  writer  proceeds  to  unfold  the  absurdities  involved  in  this  con- 
sequence. 

But  it  may  be  doubted  whether  he  did  not  regard  his  main  business 
as  finished,  and  whether  he  had  much  other  purpose  in  this  conclu- 
sion than  to  make  a  display  of  his  adroitness  in  playing  tricks  with 
words.  But  his  attempts  at  deception  are  sometimes  too  easily  seen 
through.  He  begins  with  a  sophism  (pp.  160,  161),  on  which  he 
dwells  at  some  length,  but  the  amount  of  which  is,  that,  in  denying 
that  the  Idea  of  Unity  exists,  if  we  use  words  with  any  meaning,  we 
must  have  in  our  minds  the  very  idea  of  unity,  of  which  we  deny  the 
existence.  But  he  does  not  advert  to  the  fact,  that  this  idea  of  unity 
in  our  own  minds  is  not  the  Platonic,  self-subsistent  Idea  of  Unity. 

He  next  (p.  1G2)  proceeds  to  a  still  bolder  sophism.  The  hypothe- 
sis is,  that  "  Unity  does  not  exist."  But  nothing  could  be  made  of 
this  proposition  whicli  would  serve  his  purpose.  He  tlierefore  throws 
it  into  another  form,  — "  Unity  IS  non-existent."  Here  existence  is 
predicated  of  Unity  in  the  very  act  of  denying  its  existence  ;  for  in 
doino-  so  we  say  "  It  IS."  "  In  order  to  be  non-existent,"  he  reasons, 
«  it  must  partake  of  existence."  Afterwards  (p.  1G5)  we  find  an  ar- 
gument which  is  founded  merely  on  a  verbal  quibble,  —  a  pun.  It  is 
of  course  untranslatable,  but  it  may  be  explained.  It  is  a  play  on  the 
words  yiTibev  and  ovhkv,  both  which,  according  to  their  etymology, 
mean  "  not  one,"  "no  one  thing,"  but  are  both  commonly  used  in 
the  sense  of  "  nothing."  The  writer  contends,  that,  if  Unity  does  not 
exist,  other  things  cannot  exist.  They  can  be  neither  one  nor  mamj. 
"  There  is  no  one  thing,  firjSev,  among  them,  and  therefore  they  all 
are  nothing,  ovhev,  and  cannot  be  many."  —  Yet  such  writing  as  this 


PLATO'S  DOCTRINE  OF  IDEAS.  xxiii 

seen,  God  himself  is  represented  by  him  as  an  Idea,  the  ab- 
stract Idea  of  Goodness.     I  do  not  think  that  he  represents 

has  been  considered  as  a  grave  exposition  of  the  profoundest  wisdom 
of  Plato. 

If  we  fix  in  our  minds  that  representation  of  Plato's  doctrine  of 
Ideas  which  has  been  given  above,  and  take  the  view  of  tiie  Parmen- 
ides  which  has  been  now  presented,  I  think  we  shall  not  find  it,  as 
it  has  been  regarded,  a  work  of  very  extraordinary  obscurity.  On  the 
contrary,  we  shall  be  furnished  with  a  key  by  whicli  we  can  make 
our  way  throughout.  The  locks  are  not  of  a  modern  fashion,  and  the 
bolts  are  rusty  with  age,  so  that  it  may  require  some  skill  and  effort 
to  shoot  them  back  ;  but  we  shall  find,  I  believe,  no  essential  obstacle 
in  our  way.  The  main  difficulty  in  understanding  the  work  will  con- 
sist in  the  difficulty  of  keeping  our  attention  steadily  fixed  upon 
modes  of  conception  to  which  we  are  wholly  unaccustomed. 

If  I  may  use  the  figure  of  a  key  in  a  different  sense,  the  Parmeni- 
des  may  be  compared  to  a  writing  in  cipher.  On  the  supposition  of 
its  being  the  work  of  Plato,  I  have  met  with  no  plausible,  nor  even 
intelligible,  explanation  of  its  purpose  and  meaning.  But  if,  taking 
the  representations  that  have  been  given  of  the  doctrine  of  Plato  and 
of  the  design  of  the  Parmenides,  we  perceive  a  distinct  purpose  and 
connected  meaning  in  the  work,  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  key 
of  the  cipher  has  been  found,  and  that  those  representations  are  essen- 
tially true. 

It  may  seem  that  in  three,  at  least,  of  the  Dialogues  of  Plato  tliere 
are  evidences  of  the  vexation  which  this  attack  occasioned  him.  In 
the  Philebus  (pp.  15,  IG),  he  turns  aside,  as  far  as  I  can  perceive, 
from  the  proper  business  of  the  Dialogue  to  treat  of  The  One  and  The 
Many,  and  to  describe  a  young  man,  who,  having  got  some  notion  of 
The  One  and  The  Many,  thinks  he  has  found  a  treasure  of  wisdom, 
is  transported  by  the  discovery,  and  ready  for  any  discussion;  now 
rolling  things  into  one,  and  now  unfolding  them  ;  confounding  him- 
self and  others;  and  sparing  no  listener  that  comes  in  his  way,  nei- 
ther young  nor  old,  nor  father  nor  mother,  nor  even  a  barbarian,  if  he 
can  get  an  interpreter.  Such  language  looks  very  much  as  if  it  were 
directed  against  some  particular  individual,  and  is  snch  as,  on  the  sup- 
position which  has  been  maintained,  Plato  might  have  used  in  express- 
ing his  spleen  against  the  author  of  the  Parmenides.  Throughout 
the  Thestetus,  and  the  Sophist,  which  is  a  continuation  of  the  The- 


xxiv  ADDITIONAL  NOTES. 

the  soul  as  an  Idea,  but  he  expressly  refers  it  to  the  same 
general  class  of  beings  with  Ideas.*     The  intelligible  world 

agtetus,  Plato  appears  to  me  to  have  had  the  Parmenides  in  view. 
There  are,  I  think,  in  these  Dialogues,  various  evident  references  to 
it ;  and  they  seem  to  me,  particularly  the  Sophist,  as  intended  for  an 
answer  to  it.  Gray  (Matthias's  Ed.  of  his  Works,  II.  412)  says  of  the 
Sophist :  —  "That  part  of  this  dialogue  which  is  intended  to  explain 
the  nature  of  existence  and  non-existence  is  to  me  obscure  beyond  all 
comprehension."  Some  light,  perhaps,  is  thrown  upon  it  by  consid- 
ering it  as  having  reference  to  what  is  said  in  the  Parmenides  con- 
cerning the  Idea  of  Unity,  considered  as  existing  or  as  non-existing. 
The  long  attack  on  the  character  of  a  sophist,  which  forms  the  main 
thiead  of  this  Dialogue,  I  imagine  to  have  been  directed  against  the 
author  of  the  Parmenides.  He,  I  presume,  was  regarded  by  Plato  as 
one  of  the  number  of  those  whom  he  describes,  particularly  in  the 
conclusion  of  the  work  (p.  268),  "  as  by  their  brief  questions  compel- 
ling a  fellow-dialogist  to  contradict  himself." 

But  the  Parmenides,  having  been  thought  to  be  a  work  of  Plato,  has 
been  regarded  as  a  book  of  the  most  recondite  wisdom.  "  If,"  says 
Bishop  Horsley,  in  his  controversy  with  Dr.  Priestley, "  If  you  imagine 
that  the  absolute  Unity  of  the  divine  substance  is  more  easily  to  be 
explained  than  the  Trinity,  let  me  entreat  you.  Sir,  to  read  the  Par- 
menides. It  is  indeed  in  Plato's  school,  if  anywhere,  that  a  man's 
eyes  are  likely  to  be  opened  to  his  own  ignorance."  "I  have  read 
the  Parmenides,"  says  Dr.  Priestley  in  reply,  "and  I  have  no  scruple 
to  declare,  that  I  was  not  able  to  get  one  ray  of  good  sense  from  the 
whole  of  it." 

Assuming  the  view  which  I  have  taken  of  the  Parmenides  to  be 
correct,  we  may  go  on  to  observe,  that  the  great  mistake,  of  supposing 
a  work  written  in  confutation  and  ridicule  of  Plato's  philosophy  to 
be  a  most  profound  exhibition  of  it  by  Plato  himself,  has  afforded  an 
opportunity  for  rioting  in  mysticism,  such  as  has  been  rarely  enjoyed. 
The  Parmenides  has  been  regarded  with  religious  reverence,  and  sub- 
jected to  very  extraordinary  interpretations.  Proclus  begins  his  com- 
mentary upon  it  with  a  prayer  to  all  the  Platonic  gods,  that  he  may  be 
enabled  to  understand  this  inspired  work,  and  be  initiated  into  its 
most  high  mysteries.  It  was  explained  by  him  as  containing  the 
whole  sum  of  theology.    Ficinus,  the  most  eminent  Platonist  of  mod- 

*  Phsedo,  pp.  79,  80. 


PLATO'S  DOCTRINE  OF  IDEAS.  xxv 

thus  became  a  land  of  shadows  and  chimeras,  in  which  the 
real  beings  that  appear  arc  confounded  with  a  crowd  of  dim 
and  shapeless  phantoms. 

ern  times,  followed  in  the  steps  of  Proclus.  Like  him,  he  transformed 
the  Idea  of  Unity  into  the  Divinity,  and  regarded  the  work  as  an  ac- 
count of  the  derivation  of  other  beings  from  the  Supreme.  "  Let 
him,"  he  says,  "  who  would  come  to  its  sacred  reading,  first  prepare 
himself  by  sobriety  of  soul  and  freedom  of  mind,  before  daring  to 
approach  the  mysteries  of  this  celestial  work."  And,  to  descend  to 
the  less  exalted  language  of  our  own  times,  the  last  commentator  on 
the  Parmenides  with  whom  I  am  acquainted  (Stailbaum),  whose  ex- 
position is  as  intelligible  as  the  Parmenides  itself,  when  considered  as 
the  production  of  Plato,  calls  it  "  a  most  subtile  and  weighty  discus- 
sion," "a  truly  great  and  magnificent  monument  of  ancient  philoso- 
phy," "a  divine  work." 

The  opinion  which  I  have  expressed  of  the  Parmenides  occurred  to 
me  many  years  ago,  upon  first  reading  that  Dialogue,  and  has  only 
been  confirmed  by  subsequent  examination.  If  this  view  of  it  be 
correct,  Socher  deserves  the  praise  of  having  first  presented  it  to  the 
world  in  his  work  "  Ueber  Platon's  Schriften  "  (On  Plato's  Writings). 
But  it  appears  to  have  found  no  favor  among  his  countrymen. 

Any  explanation  of  Plato's  doctrine  of  Ideas  must  be  imperfect  and 
unsatisfactory,  unless  accompanied  by  some  account  of  the  Parmeni- 
des, which,  however  little  understood,  or  however  differently  interpret- 
ed, has  been  regarded  as  his  great  work  on  the  subject,  a  storehouse 
of  wisdom  all  but  incomprehensible.  The  limits  within  which  it  has 
been  proper  for  me  to  confine  myself  have  precluded  the  possibility  of 
entering  into  detail ;  but  perhaps  the  suggestions  that  have  been  made 
are  sufficient  to  guide  an  intelligent  reader  in  forming  his  own  opinion 
concerning  this  Dialogue.  If  it  be  a  work  such  as  I  have  supposed, 
there  is  nothing  more  curious  or  more  instructive,  in  the  history  of 
literature,  than  the  mistake  committed  concerning  it,  and  the  manner 
in  which  it  has  consequently  been  estimated.  There  is  nothing  which 
more  strongly  illustrates  those  tendencies  of  the  mind  which  we  class 
together  under  the  name  of  mysticism,  —  the  propensity  to  admire  the 
unintelligible,  and  to  glory  in  absurdities,  as  in  truths  surpassing  vul- 
gar comprehension. 

VOL.  III.  46 


xxvi  ADDITIONAL   NOTES. 

Such  was  the  division  made  by  Plato  and  his  followers  of 
beings  into  intelligible  and  sensible.  We  have  next  to  con- 
sider what  was  the  distinction  made  by  the  ancients  between 
spiritual  and  material  things.  This  distinction  had  a  gen- 
eral resemblance  to  that  just  explained,  but  was  far  from  be- 
ing coincident  with  the  distinction  which  in  modern  times  we 
denote  by  the  use  of  those  terms. 

It  was  a  common  doctrine,  as  we  have  seen,  that  evil  is 
inherent  in  matter,  and  that,  in  matter,  existing  evils,  physi- 
cal and  moral,  have  their  source.  But,  however  widely  dif- 
ferent were  the  properties  which  the  ancients  ascribed  to 
things  material  and  things  spiritual,  their  notions  of  them 
ran  together,  and  were  so  blended  that  it  is  impossible  to 
separate  them  and  fix  the  limits  of  each  division.  There 
was  a  general  absence  of  clear  and  definite  conceptions  of 
the  existence  of  any  thing  either  not  material,  according  to 
our  use  of  language,  or  not  inseparably  united  with  matter. 
The  distinction  made  between  the  material  and  the  spiritual 
was  generally  only  a  distinction  between  gross,  inert,  and 
earthy  matter,  and  matter,  rare,  ethereal,  and  sometimes 
luminous.  It  may  be  illustrated  by  the  conception,  enter- 
tained, perhaps  correctly,  by  most  Christians  at  the  present 
day,  of  the  spiritual  world,  which,  I  suppose,  is  not  that  of  a 
world  of  pure  disembodied  spirits  alone,  but  includes  the 
idea  of  bodies  of  ethereal  mould,  having  a  resemblance  to 
those  on  earth.  As  denoting  such  bodies,  the  word  spiritual 
is  used  by  St.  Paul,  when  he  says,  "  An  animal  body  is 
sown,  a  spiritual  body  is  raised :  there  is  an  animal  body, 
and  there  is  a  spiritual  body  ";* — expressions  which, though 
they  may  seem  strange  to  us,  and  highly  metaphorical,  pre- 
sented to  a  contemporary  reader  only  a  common  use  of  lan- 
guage.    By  a  "  spiritual  body,"  such  a  reader  would  under- 

*  1  Corinthians,  xv.  44. 


ON  THE  TERMS  SPIRITUAL  AND  MATERIAL,   xxvu 

stand  (to  use  the  words  of  Chrysostom)  "  a  body  lighter  and 
more  subtile,  and  such  as  might  be  borne  on  the  air."  *  The 
Greek  word  nvevfia,  which  we  translate  spirit,  denoted  in 
its  primary  meaning  breath-,  or  air  in  motion,  and  this  ma- 
terial sense  clung  to  it  for  a  long  time  in  its  derivative 
meanings.  A  very  striking  example  of  the  difference  be- 
tween that  word  and  our  word  spirit  is  afforded  by  Origen, 
who,  in  arguing  that  God  is  incorporeal,  undertakes  to  ansicer 
those  "  who  think  that  God  has  a  body,  because  it  is  said 
that  God  is  a  spirit,  Tn/fv/xa."  f  Origen  himself  says,  that  the 
passage,  if  taken  literally,  would  convey  this  meaning.} 

Origen  believed  God  to  be  incorporeal,  apparently  in  the 
proper  sense  of  the  term.§  TertuUian,  on  the  contrary, 
conceived  of  God  as  having  a  body,  but  an  "  immaterial " 
body  ;  for  TertuUian  was  one  of  the  first  who  maintained, 
that  matter  did  not  exist  from  eternity,  but  was  created  by 
God.  The  terms  "  body,"  "  corporeal,"  and  "  incorporeal " 
were  used  by  the  ancients  as  vaguely  as  the  word  "  spirit- 
ual." "Who  will  deny,"  asks  TertuUian,  "  that  God  is  a 
body,  although  God  is  a  spirit  ?  For  a  spirit  is  a  body  of  its 
own  nature  in  its  own  form."  j]  He  says  in  another  place: 
"That  which  constitutes  any  thing  a  being  is  its  body. 
Whatever  exists  is  a  body  of  its  own  nature ;  nothing  which 
has  a  being  is  incorporeal."  ^  In  his  treatise  "  Concerning 
the  Soul "  he  contends  that  it  was  not  formed  out  of  matter, 
but  breathed  into  man  by  God,  and  at  the  same  time  affirms 
it  to  be  corporeal,  and  to  have  a  visible  form. 

*  Homil.  xli.  in  I.  Ep.  ad  Corinth,  col.  465.     Ed.  1G97. 
t  De  Principiis,  Lib.  I.  c.  1.  §  2.     Opp.  I.  50. 
t  Comment,  in  Joan.  iv.  24.     Opp.  IV.  230. 

§   De  Principiis,  Lib.  I.  c.  I,  Opp.  L  49,  seqq.     Vid.  etiam  lluetii 
Origeniana,  Lib.  II.  Qusest.  1.  §  6. 
II  Adversus  Praxeam,  c.  7.  p.  504. 
H  De  Carne  Christi,  c.  11.  p.  317. 


xxviii  ADDITIONAL   NOTES. 

In  conceiving  of  God  and  the  soul  as  corporeal,  Tertul- 
lian  had  in  his  own  age  abundant  authorities  on  his  side. 
The  greatest  genius  and  the  clearest  thinker  among  the 
ancient  philosophers,  Cicero,  says  that  the  doctrine  of  Xe- 
nocrates,  that  the  soul  is  incorporeal  mind,  is  scarcely  com- 
prehensible. *  The  God  of  the  Stoics  was  an  ethereal  fire 
penetrating  and  moving  the  Universe.  The  representation 
of  God  as  pure  light  was  familiar  to  the  Christian  fathers ; 
and  though  none  could  make  a  wider  distinction  between 
the  spiritual  and  the  material  world  than  the  Gnostics  and 
the  Manichseans,  yet  the  same  conception  of  God  was  en- 
tertained by  them.t  It  is  expressed  by  the  Valentinian, 
Ptolemy  ;  :|:  and  in  the  Doctrina  Orientalis  it  is  taught,  that 
no  spiritual  beings,  neither  archangels,  nor  the  first  mani- 
festation of  the  Deity,  who  is  identical  with  God,  are  incor- 
poreal or  without  their  peculiar  forms ;  he,  the  Son,  the 
First-born,  being  light  inaccessible. §  Such  were  the  opin- 
ions of  those  heretics.  Turning  again  to  the  catholic  Chris- 
tians, we  may  observe,  that,  when  the  council  of  Nice  de- 
cided that  the  Son  "  was  God  of  God,  light  of  light,"  they 
did  not  intend  that  the  last  words  should  be  taken  in  a  meta- 
phorical sense.  Their  meaning  was,  that  the  substance  of 
the  Son,  being  light,  was  derived  from  and  coessential  with 
that  light  which  was  the  substance  of  the  Father.  ||     A  met- 


*  Academic.  Qusest.  Lib.  IV.  §  39. 

t  In  regard  to  the  Manichasans,  see  Beausobre,  I.  466,  seqq. 

t  Epist.  ad  Floram. 

§  Doctrina  Orientalis,  §  10.     Conf.  §  8. 

II  Milton  apprehended  the  Deity  in  a  similar  manner,  when  he  ad- 
dressed Light  as  being  "  of  the  Eternal  coeternal  beam,"  as  "  Bright 
effluence  of  bright  essence,  increate  "  ;  "since  God  is  Light."  From 
this  notion  of  the  Deity,  "  arose  among  the  Greeks  in  the  fourteenth 
century  a  violent  controversy  upon  a  question  much  more  curious 
than  useful"  (I  quote  Beausobre),  "that  is  to  say,  Whether  the  light 


ON  THE  TERMS  SPIRITUAL  AND  MATERIAL,  xxix 

aphor,  however  understood,  would  not  be  to  the  purpose  of 
the  Creed,  which  was  not  to  declare  that  the  Son  derived 
any  moral  or  intellectual  property  from  the  Father  which 
might  be  denominated  light.,  but  to  declare  him  to  be,  prop- 
erly speaking,  consubstantial  with  the  Father.  The  com- 
prehension both  of  the  Catholic  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  and 
of  the  Gnostic  system  of  jEons,  so  far  as  either  could  be 
comprehended,  was  facilitated  without  doubt  by  these  mate- 
rial conceptions  of  the  Deity. 

As  regards  most  of  those  ancients  who  affirmed  the 
Deity  or  the  soul  to  be  incorporeal,  it  may  be  doubted 
whether  they  differed  essentially  in  opinion  from  those  who 
regarded  them  as  having  a  body ;  so  loose  and  uncertain 
was  the  meaning  of  the  word  "  incorporeal,"  da-anaTos. 
The  following  examples  of  this  uncertainty  are  given  by 
Cudvvorth,  who,  with  his  customary  fairness,  adduces  them 
in  opposition  to  his  own  argument,  "  The  word  incorporeal" 
he  says,  "  may  be  taken  for  a  thin  and  subtile  body."  In 
this  sense,  he  observes,  that  according  to  Aristotle,  "  fire 

was  by  some  said  to  be  fiaXia-ra  rav  otoix'^'kjdv  daayfiarov  and 

ao-co/iarcoraroi',"  that  is,  "  the  most  incorporeal  of  all  the  el- 
ements.'''' "Aristotle  himself,"  he  adds,  "  uses  the  word  in 
the  same  manner,  when  he  affirms  that  all  philosophers 
defined  the  soul  by  three  things.  Motion.,  Sense,  and  Incor- 
poreity,"  whereas  "  several  of  those  there  mentioned  by  him 

which  shone  round  Jesus  Clirist  at  his  transfiguration  was  created  or 
uncreated  light."  (Histoire  du  Manicheisme,  I.  470.) 

In  his  Treatise  on  Christian  Doctrine,  Milton  proceeds  much  far- 
ther in  ascribing  corporeity  to  the  Supreme  Being.  "If  God,"  he 
asks,  "  habitually  assigns  to  himself  [in  Scripture]  the  members  and 
form  of  a  man,  why  should  we  be  afraid  of  attributing  to  him  what 
he  attributes  to  himself?  "  B.  I.  Ch.  II.  Such  a  question,  proposed 
by  one  of  the  most  enlightened  minds  of  the  seventeenth  century, 
may  teach  us  tolerance  for  those  eminent  men  who  erred  as  grossly 
in  ancient  days. 


XXX  ADDITIONAL  NOTES. 

understood  the  soul  to  be  no  otherwise  incorporeal  than  as 
crw/ia  XeiTTOfifpes,  a  thin  and  subtile  body.''''  *  It  was  in  this 
meaning  of  the  word,  that  the  fathers  denominated  the  an- 
gels incorporeal,  not  regarding  them  as  without  bodies,  but 
as  having  ethereal  bodies,  free  from  all  grosser  matter. 

In  the  first  book  of  his  Tusculan  Disputations,  Cicero 
enumerates  the  opinions  of  the  ancient  philosophers  con- 
cerning the  soul.  No  one  of  the  opinions  mentioned  by 
him  can  be  considered  as  involving  the  belief,  that  the  soul 
is  a  spiritual  being  in  the  modern  sense  of  the  term,  capa- 
ble of  existing  separate  from  matter.  Nor  does  this  appear 
to  have  been  the  common  belief  of  the  early  Christians, 
either  catholics  or  heretics.  In  regard  to  the  whole  question, 
we  must  recollect  what  has  been  before  observed,  that  the 
conceptions  of  the  ancients  generally  were  not  conformed 
to  our  modern  distinction  of  beings  into  material  and  spirit- 
ual, and  that  they  were  not  familiar  with  the  senses  in  which 
we  use  those  terms.  The  loose  classification  of  beings,  to 
which  those  terms  in  their  ancient  sense  were  applied,  has 
only  an  apparent  resemblance  to  our  own. 

I  have  already  mentioned  t  a  remarkable  fact,  which  may 
serve  to  show  the  state  of  ancient  philosophy,  that  neither 
the  Greek  word  equivalent  to  "  matter,"  vXr;,  nor  any  other 
single  word,  was  used  by  Plato  to  denote  matter.  The 
word  v\r],  which  was  afterwards  employed  in  this  significa- 
tion, originally  denoted  a  wood,  hence  loood,  and  hence  the 
relative  idea  of  the  material  of  a  thing,  in  which  sense  it  is 
used  by  Plato,  and  not  as  expressing  the  absolute  idea  of 
matter.  Plato,  however,  speaks  of  matter  without  using  its 
name  ;  of  matter,  as  an  object  of  the  senses,  in  the  forms 
in  which  it  presents  itself  in  the  creation,  and  also  of  prim- 

*  Intellectual  System,  Ch.  V.  Sect.  3.  pp.  778,  779. 
t  See  before,  p.  51,  note. 


ON  THE  TERMS  SPIRITUAL  AND  MATERIAL,  xxxi 

itive  matter,  that  is,  matter  as  it  existed  before  the  creation, 
coeternal  with  the  Deity.  According  to  one  of  his  rep- 
resentations of  matter  as  it  existed  in  its  primal  state,  it  cor- 
responded to  the  imaginary  substratum  of  the  logicians. 
He  conceived  of  it  simply  as  the  basis  on  which  all  sensible 
properties  afterwards  supervened,  being  in  itself  without 
properties.  In  other  words,  it  was  the  mere  recipient  of  his 
intelligible  forms ;  all  objects  of  the  senses  being  the  joint 
product  of  the  union  of  these  forms,  or  archetypal  Ideas, 
with  primitive  matter.  He  thus  describes  it  as  the  matrix  of 
all  things  sensible,  as  being  fitted  for  the  reception  of  all 
qualities,  by  being  itself  destitute  of  all ;  as  "  without  form, 
invisible,  something  very  difficult  to  be  comprehended."  * 
The  later  Platonists  added  to  the  description,  that  it  was 
incorporeal,  —  a  strange  doctrine  according  to  our  use  of  the 
term,  but  easily  understood  in  reference  to  the  ancient  sense 
of  the  word,  t  But  it  is  to  be  observed,  that  this  account  of 
primitive  matter,  which  is  given  by  Plato  in  one  passage  of 
his  Timseus,  is  altogether  inconsistent  with  the  conceptions 
which  he  elsewhere  expresses  of  matter  as  the  cause  of  evil, 
as  having  a  nature  contrary  to  the  will  of  the  Deity,  and  as 
having  been  in  a  state  of  discordant  and  disorderly  motion 
before  it  was  reduced  by  him  to  its  present  forms.  | 


I  WILL  here  venture  to  make  a  few  remarks,  which,  if 
correct,  may  serve  to  show  the  extent  of  the  ancient  error 

*  TimiEUS,  p.  51.     See  also  what  precedes  and  follows. 

t  Some  striking  passages  to  this  effect  from  Plotinus  are  given  by 
Massuet  in  one  of  his  notes  on  Irenasus,  p.  22.  But,  long  before  the 
time  of  the  later  Platonists,  Aristotle  speaks  of  metaphysicians  who 
regarded  primitive  matter  as  incorporeal.  See  the  passage  quoted 
from  him  by  Cudworth,  Ch.  V.  Sect.  2.  p.  7C5. 

t  See  before,  p.  50,  seqq. 


xxxii  ADDITIONAL  NOTES. 

concerning  the  evil  properties  of  matter,  and  to  remove 
other  misapprehensions  of  its  nature.  * 

*  The  doctrine  to  be  stated  above,  it  will  be  percei^yed,  is  essential- 
ly the  same  with  that  of  Berkeley,  but  presented  under  a  different 
aspect.  It  has  been  said,  that  it  was  held  many  centuries  ago  by 
sages  of  Hindostan,  having  been  taught  by  Vyasa, 

"The  immortal  Berkeley  of  that  elder  age." 

Were  this  so,  it  would  be,  perhaps,  the  most  remarkable  phenomenon 
in  tlie  history  of  opinions.  We  do  not,  I  think,  perceive  any  thing 
that  approaches  to  so  acute  and  powerful  an  exercise  of  intellect  in 
Grecian  philosophy. 

But  it  may  be  doubted,  whether  the  Indian  doctrine  was  coincident 
with  that  of  Berkeley,  or  arrived  at  by  a  similar  process  of  reasoning. 
It  was,  perhaps,  one  form,  the  most  comprehensive,  of  the  doctrine 
of  the  emanation  of  beings  from  the  Divine  Substance.  This  doc- 
trine, which  has  been  elsewhere  so  prevalent,  appears  to  have  been 
fundamental  in  the  different  forms  of  the  theology  of  India.  It  ne- 
cessarily implies  the  materiality  of  the  Divine  Substance  in  our  sense 
of  the  word  materiality.  There  was  nothing,  therefore,  incongruous 
in  the  supposition,  that  matter,  as  well  as  all  finite  minds,  emanated 
from  the  Deity.  Accordingly,  matter  may  have  been  regarded  as  not 
self-subsistent ;  as  not  a  substance  distinct  from  the  Deity,  but  as  the 
substance  of  the  Deity  himself;  and  as  not  what  it  appears  to  be, 
but  as  "Maya,"  or  Delusion.  There  is  little  resemblance  between 
this  doctrine  and  that  of  Berkeley  :  but  there  is  a  striking  coincidence 
between  it  and  that  of  the  Jewish  Cabalists,  according  to  the  ac- 
counts which  have  been  given  of  the  latter.  (See  Basnage,  Hisloire 
des  Juifs,  Liv.  IV.  ch.  7.  Tome  IV.  p.  137,  seqq.  Brucker,  Hist. 
Philosophise.  T.  II.  p.  980,  seqq.) 

Berkeley,  in  opposing  popular  errors,  sometimes  ran  into  contrary 
errors.  His  ardent  temper  led  him  rather  to  present  his  doctrines  in 
opposition  to  what  had  been  believed,  than  to  show  how  they  might 
be  reconciled  with  men's  previous  opinions.  He  was  not  always  ac- 
curate in  defining  his  conceptions,  and  he  is  negligent  in  the  use  of 
language.  His  style  has  often  more  resemblance  to  that  of  an  animat- 
ed oral  discussion,  in  which  allowance  is  to  be  made  for  carelessness 
of  expression  and  overstatement,  than  to  the  style  proper  for  a  philo- 
sophical treatise.    Hence  something  of  a  paradoxical  character  appears 


THE  NATURE  OF  MATTER.  xxxiii 

Of  matter  we  know  nothing,  but  that  it  is  capable  of  pro- 
ducing in  us  sensations  and  perceptions.  These  we  refer  to 
something  external  as  tlieir  cause,  because  we  are  conscious 
that  they  are  not  produced  by  any  thing  within  us. 

But  of  this  external  being  we  know  nothing  except 
through  its  powers,  —  its  powers  of  producing  in  us  sensa- 
tions and  perceptions.  Now  these  powers  cannot  be  sup- 
posed intrinsic  in  matter  considered  as  a  substance,  some- 
thing existing  separately,  essentially  distinct  from  spirit. 
Every  theist  who  considers  matter  as  a  substance  must  re- 
gard its  powers  of  affecting  mind  as  immediately  dependent 
on  the  power  and  will  of  God.  It  can  become  perceptible 
by  us  only  because  it  is  the  will  of  God  that  it  should  be  so 
perceived,  and  the  will  and  power  of  God  must  be  in  con- 
stant exercise  to  this  end;  for  the  effect  produced,  being 
the  result  of  his  will,  must  cease  when  it  is  no  longer  his 
will  that  it  should  exist.  The  effect,  likewise,  must  be  sole- 
ly the  result  of  his  will,  as  this  alone  would  necessarily  pro- 


throughout  liis  writings,  and  propositions  are  to  be  found,  in  which  he 
evidently  asserts  more  than  he  intended,  or,  at  least,  more  than  he 
would  defend.  But  he  is  preeminent  as  an  original  thinker.  In  this 
respect,  in  moral  worth  as  a  man,  and  in  entire  honesty  of  purpose  as 
a  writer,  he  was  well  qualified  to  be  a  follower  of  the  great  founder  of 
metaphysical  science.  He  wanted,  indeed,  what  Locke  possessed,  that 
calm  comprehensiveness  of  mind,  that  capacity  of  viewing  a  subject 
in  all  its  relations  both  to  absolute  truth  and  to  the  opinions  existing 
concerning  it,  that  consequent  ability  to  accommodate  and  ally  what 
he  taught  to  conceptions  already  held,  and  that  familiar  perspicuity  of 
language,  which  constitute  a  union  of  the  highest  excellences  in  a 
philosopher,  —  but  which  are  apt  to  deceive  an  unreflecting  reader, 
and  to  make  him  feel  as  if  the  thoughts  were  such  as  with  a  little 
effort  might  have  occurred  to  himself  But,  after  every  deduction 
which  we  may  be  compelled  to  make  from  the  praise  of  Berkeley,  his 
name  will  remain  one  of  the  great  names  in  the  literature  of  the 
world,  and  one  of  those  most  deserving  of  honor. 
VOL.  III.  *  47 


xxxiv  ADDITIONAL  NOTES. 

duce  it,  and  consequently  excludes  the  supposition  of  any 
other  power,  any  power  intrinsic  in  matter,  as  a  partial 
cause  of  it.  Our  perceptions,  then,  are  the  immediate  result 
of  the  will  and  power  of  God.  If  his  will  were  not  exerted 
to  produce  them,  a  spiritual  being  might  traverse  the  materi- 
al universe  without  becoming  acquainted  with  its  existence. 
And  on  the  other  hand,  supposing  matter  not  to  exist  as  a 
substance,  the  present  perceptions  and  sensations  of  all 
minds  would,  notwithstanding,  still  exist,  were  it  the  will  of 
God  that  they  should. 

Our  perceptions,  then,  are  the  result  of  the  will  and  pow- 
er of  God  in  immediate  action.  They  are  produced  by  his 
power,  not  by  any  power  intrinsic  in  matter  considered  as  a 
substance.  Matter  is  only  a  mode  in  which  the  Deity  dis- 
plays his  power. 

Strictly  speaking,  power  cannot  be  ascribed  to  an  uncon- 
scious substance,  a  being  without  volition.  That  cannot, 
properly,  be  considered  as  the  power  of  any  being,  which  is 
not  exercised  at  its  volition,  nor  is  in  any  degree  under  its 
control.  Power,  therefore,  the  ability  to  cause  that  to  be 
which  did  not  before  exist,  is  not  to  be  ascribed  to  matter 
considered  as  a  substance.  Our  perceptions,  which  are  the 
result  of  some  external  power,  cannot  be  referred  to  matter, 
so  considered,  as  their  cause.  They  must  be  regarded  as 
produced  by  the  operation  of  the  Divine  Mind. 

The  attributes  of  matter,  that  is,  its  powers  of  producing 
in  us  sensations  and  perceptions,  are  all  of  which  our  senses 
give  us  evidence.  Besides  them,  nothing  can  be  known,  or 
conceived,  or  imagined  of  matter.  The  question,  then,  is, 
Whether  these  powers  are  to  be  referred  to  an  inconceivable 
and  unimaginable  being,  or  to  another  being  without  us,  the 
Deity,  whom  we  believe  to  be  perfectly  adequate  to  produce 
all  the  effects  which  we  experience.  Nor,  upon  examina- 
tion, will  even  this  appear  a  question;  for,  when  we  intro- 


THE  NATURE  OF  MATTER.  xxxv 

duce  matter  as  a  substance,  it  serves  in  no  way  to  solve  the 
phenomena  presented  ;  it  can  have  no  intrinsic  power  to 
produce  them,  nor  can  we  even  conceive  of  any  instrument- 
al agency  which  it  may  have  in  their  production. 

To  the  immediate  agency  of  the  Deity  in  all  that  we  feel 
and  perceive  may  be  objected  the  nature  of  many  of  our 
sensations  and  perceptions.  To  this  it  is  to  be  answered, 
that  their  true  nature  is  not  to  be  estimated  by  the  manner 
in  which  a  finite  being  is  temporarily  affected  by  them,  nor 
conformably  to  his  imperfect  views  and  partial  judgments. 
The  doctrine  that  God  is  the  creator  of  all  things,  or  the 
doctrine  that  he  is  everywhere  present,  is  liable  to  the 
same  class  of  objections,  from  the  false  and  incongruous 
associations  with  his  character  to  which  either  may  accident- 
ally lead,  as  the  doctrine  of  his  agency  in  producing  all  sen- 
sations and  perceptions. 

Admitting  the  truth  of  this  doctrine,  all  material  things 
become  to  us  only  one  vast  display  of  the  power  of  God,  in 
immediate  action,  and  inexhaustibly  varied  in  its  operations. 
The  universe  consists  of  finite  spirits  embosomed  in  the  In- 
finite Spirit.  Matter  ceases  to  be  the  veil,  and  becomes  the 
manifestation  of  God.  We  are  continually  in  his  visible 
presence,  so  far  as  we  can,  in  any  case,  speak  of  the  visible 
presence  of  Him  who  is  to  be  perceived  by  any  finite  being 
only  through  the  displays  of  his  power.  In  the  strongest 
and  most  literal  sense  of  the  words,  we  are  living,  moving, 
and  having  our  beingr  in  Him.  And  when  with  this  belief 
is  united  a  conviction  of  his  unmingled  goodness,  no  state 
of  mind  would  seem  more  favorable  to  devotion,  to  habitual 
reference  to  Him,  and  consequently  to  the  moral  perfection 
of  our  nature. 


NOTE  B. 
(See  p.  151.) 

ON  BASILIDES  AND  THE    BASILIDIANS. 


Basilides  and  his  proper  followers  seem  to  have  consti- 
tuted a  small  sect  of  theosophic  Gnostics,  which  owed  its 
distinction  principally  to  its  early  existence,  and  to  the  tal- 
ents and  the  writings  of  its  founder  and  of  his  son  Isidore. 
With  their  writings  Clement  of  Alexandria  was  acquainted. 
He  gives  various  quotations  from  them,  and  comments  on 
the  doctrines  taught  in  them.  But  they  do  not  appear  to 
have  been  consulted  by  Irenseus,  nor  by  any  other  of  the 
ancient  writers  who  profess  to  give  accounts  of  the  heretical 
sects.  From  Clement,  therefore,  we  must  gather  almost  all 
the  information  concerning  the  doctrines  of  the  proper 
Basilidians,  on  which  we  can  rely  with  any  confidence. 
The  peculiarities  which  they  derived  from  their  founder 
probably  soon  melted  away ;  and  the  members  of  the  sect 
appear  to  have  become  either  pseudo-Christians,  or  semi- 
Christians,  on  the  one  side,  or  to  have  been  confounded  with 
the  great  body  of  the  Valentinians,  on  the  other. 

Basilides,  like  the  Valentinians,  held  the  doctrine  of  a 
primitive  Ogdoad,  composed  of  the  Supreme  Being,  and 
seven  derivative  ^ons,*  which  he  doubtless  regarded,  in 
common  with  the  Valentinians,  as  the  source  of  all  other 
beings. t  He  appears  to  have  thought  as  honorably  as  the 
Valentinians  of  the  Creator  and  Ruler  of  the  material  uni- 

*  Clement.  Al.  Stromat.  IV.  §  25.  p.  637. 

t   See  before,  p,  124. 


BASILIDES   AND  THE  BASILIDIANS.      xxxvii 

verse.*  He  held  the  common  doctrine  of  the  theosophic 
Gnostics,  that  certain  individuals  are  elect  through  their 
spiritual  nature.f  He  held  the  Platonic  doctrine  of  the  pre- 
existence  and  transmigration  of  souls.l  He  regarded  the 
passions  as  evil  spirits  attached  to  the  rational  soul  through 
some  original  disorder  and  confusion  ;  ^  —  referring,  proba- 
bly, to  that  original  disorder  and  confusion,  resulting  from 
the  mingling  of  the  spiritual  with  the  material,  which  appears 
in  the  systems  of  the  other  theosophic  Gnostics,  as  giving 
birth  to  the  material  universe.  He  believed  our  Lord  to 
have  had  a  real  body,  capable  of  suffering,  H  though  proba- 
bly, like  the  Valentinians,  he  did  not  suppose  it  to  have  been 
a  body  of  flesh  and  blood. 

Enough  has  been  formerly  said,M  to  show  that  Basilides 
did  not  teach  immorality.  But  it  may  be  further  remarked, 
that  he  held  a  doctrine  of  extraordinary  rigor.  He  contend- 
ed that  even  sins  committed  before  becoming  a  Christian 
were  not  pardoned,  with  the  exception  of  involuntary  sins 
and  sins  of  ignorance.**  In  connection  with  this,  he  fur- 
ther maintained  that  all  suffering  was  the  punishment  of 
sin ;  and  that  even  martj'rdom  was  only  a  more  honorable 
punishment,  either  for  actual  sin,  or,  at  least,  for  a  tendency 
to  sin  which  had  not  shown  itself  in  action.tt  Clement 
quotes  his  words  to  this  effect ;  and  adds,  what  in  itself  is 

»  Stromal.  II.  §  3.  pp.  448,  449.     Stromal.  IV.  §  12.  p.  COO. 

t  Stromal.  II.  §  3.  p.  433.  Stromal.  IV.  §  13.  p.  603.  Stromal.  V. 
§  1.  pp.  G4J,  64.5. 

i  Stromal.  IV.  §  12.  p.  600.  Origen.  Comment,  in  Ep.  ad  Romanos, 
Lib.  V.  0pp.  IV.  549. 

§  Stromal.    II.  §  20.  pp.  487,  488. 

II  Stromal.  IV.  §  12.  p.  600.  Conf.  Stromal.  I.  §  21.  pp.  407,  408. 
Doclrina  Orienlalis,  §  16.  p.  972. 

TT  See  Vol.  II.  p.  130. 

**  Stromal.  IV.  §  24.  p.  634. 

H  Stromal.  IV.  §  12.  pp.  599,600. 


xxxviii  ADDITIONAL   NOTES. 

not  improbable,  though  it  does  not  appear  in  the  quotations 
which  he  gives,  that  Basilides  considered  sins  committed  in 
a  preexistent  state  as  causes  of  present  suffering. 

Basilides  supposes  that  it  may  be  urged  by  an  objector, 
that  such  or  such  a  person  suffered  without  being  a  sinner. 
To  this  he  replies,  —  "  With  permission  I  will  say,  that  he 
had  not  committed  sin,  but  was  like  an  infant  who  suffers," 
that  is,  on  account  of  a  tendency  to  sin,  as  he  has  before  ex- 
plained himself  "  But  if  you  urge  the  matter  still  farther, 
I  will  say,  that  whomever  you  may  name,  he  is  a  man,  but 
that  God  is  just.  Now,  no  man,  as  has  been  said,  is  pure 
from  stain."  "  I  will  say  any  thing,"  he  has  before  ob- 
served, "rather  than  speak  evil  of  Providence."* 

By  that  God  who  is  just,  and  of  whose  providence  he  will 
not  speak  evil,  it  would  seem  that  Basilides  intended  the 
Creator,  or  the  immediate  god  of  the  material  universe, 
whom  the  Gnostics  generally  affirmed  to  be  just.  Clement 
considers  his  words  in  the  passage  I  have  quoted  as  refer- 
ring directly  to  our  Lord  considered  as  a  man,  and  as  mean- 
ing, "  Whomever  you  may  name,  he  is  a  man";  "now,  no 
man,"  not  even  Jesus  who  suffered,  "is  pure  from  stain." 
The  words  certainly  have  that  appearance.  In  common 
with  other  theosophists,  Basilides  distinguished,  we  may  pre- 
sume, between  the  man  Jesus  and  the  proper  Saviour,  who 
descended  into  him  from  the  Pleroma,  and  left  him  at  his 
crucifixion ;  and  if  so,  there  may  seem  little  doubt  that  he 
is  here  speaking  of  the  sufferings  of  Jesus. 

Maintaining  such  a  doctrine,  Basilides  was  represented, 
not  unfairly,  as  detracting  from  the  honor  of  the  martyrs, 
and  discouraging  that  bold  profession  of  the  truth  which 
might  lead  to  suffering.  It  was  said,  also,  that  his  principles 
caused  men  to  deny  their  faith,  and  to  sacrifice  to  the  heath- 

*  Stromal.  IV.  §  12.  p.  GOO. 


BASILIDES   AND   THE  BASILIDIANS.       xxxix 

en  gods.*     They  may  have  had  this  effect  upon  some  of  his 
followers.! 

Clement  describes  him  as  "  deifying  the  Devil,  while  dar- 
ing to  speak  of  the  Lord  as  a  sinful  man."  |  Upon  this, 
and  some  other  evidence  not  more  decisive,  Basilides  has 
been  represented  as  holding  the  Persian  doctrine,  that  the 
mixture  of  good  and  evil  in  the  world  is  the  result  of  the 
struggle  between  two  antagonist  principles,  one  good  and  the 
other  evil,  and  as  having  thus  been  a  precursor  of  Manichse- 
us.  But  I  suppose  that  his  doctrine  was  not  essentially  differ- 
ent from  that  held  by  the  Gnostics  generally,  and  by  many 
of  the  heathen  philosophers,  including  Plato.  In  common 
with  them,  Basilides  believed  in  an  evil  principle  resident  in 
matter. 

Such,  I  conceive,  is  the  amount  of  all  the  authentic  infor- 
mation that  remains  concerning  the  leading  doctrines  of  Bas- 
ilides and  his  proper  followers.  But  Irenseus  has  a  short 
account  of  him,§  which  appears  to  have  formed  the  basis 
of  the  accounts  of  the  subsequent  historians  of  heresy  in 
ancient  times.  Irenaeus,  however,  nehher  directly  nor  indi- 
rectly refers  to  any  authority  for  his  assertions ;  and  those 
assertions,  considered  as  relating  to  Basilides  or  to  such  as 
might  properly  be  called  Basilidians,  are  intrinsically  im- 
probable, and,  at  the  same  time,  irreconcilable  with  the  no- 
tices of  Clement.  Irena3us  professedly  gives  the  doctrines 
of  Basilides  ;  but,  as  I  have  had  repeated  occasion  to  remark, 
sects  were  designated  by  the  name  of  their  founder ;  and 
those  doctrines,  I  presume,  were  doctrines  which  he  sup- 

*  Origen.  Comment,  in  Matt.  0pp.  III.  85G,  857.  Conf.  Irenaeus, 
Lib.  I.e.  24   §  5.  pp.  101,  102. 

t  See  Vol.  II.  p.  130.  t  Stromal.  IV.  §  12.  p.  601. 

§  Lib.  I.  c.  24.  §§  3-7.  pp.  101,  102.  Conf.  Lib.  II.  c.  16.  §  2. 
p.  137. 


xl  ADDITIONAL  NOTES. 

posed  to  be  held  by  certain  persons  called  Basilidians,  and 
which,  in  consequence,  he  probably  thought  to  have  been 
derived  from  Basilides. 

Irenseus,  instead  of  the  Ogdoad  of  ^ons  ascribed  by 
Clement  to  Basilides,  represents  him  as  having  taught  that 
there  were  six  primary  ^ons  only.  From  the  last  two  of 
these  iEons,  he  says,  that,  according  to  Basilides,  there  pro- 
ceeded "  Powers,  Princes,  and  Angels,  whom  he  calls  the 
First,  and  that  by  them  the  first  heaven  was  made."  From 
these  other  beings  emanated,  who  formed  a  new  heaven ; 
and  others  again  from  them,  who  formed  a  third  ;  and  so 
on  in  succession,  till  three  hundred  and  sixty-five  heavens 
were  formed,  each  the  antitype  of  its  predecessor.  "On 
this  account  the  year  has  three  hundred  and  sixty-five  days, 
corresponding  to  the  number  of  the  heavens."  "  And  they 
distribute,"  says  Irenseus,  "  the  local  positions  of  those  heav- 
ens in  like  manner  as  the  astronomers.  For,  receiving  their 
theorems,  they  conform  them  to  their  own  doctrine."  It 
seems  impossible  to  determine  what  correspondence,  in  the 
arrangement  of  three  hundred  and  sixty-five  heavens,  Ire- 
nseus  intended  to  indicate  as  existing  between  the  astrono- 
mers and  the  Basilidians.  But  perhaps  he  had  some  mean- 
ing less  strange  than  that  which  the  words  of  his  Latin 
Translator  appear  to  present.  Irenseus  further  says,  that 
Basilides  taught,  that  "the  angels"  who  formed  the  last 
heaven  were  also  the  makers  of  this  world. 

Had  Basilides,  held  so  extraordinary  a  doctrine  as  that 
which  Irenseus  reports  concerning  the  three  hundred  and 
sixty-five  heavens,  it  seems  likely  that  it  would  have  attract- 
ed the  notice  of  Clement ;  but  Clement  does  not  mention 
it  nor  refer  to  it.  On  the  contrary,  he  says  that  Basilides 
affirmed  that  but  a  single  wox-ld  had  been  produced.*     It  is 

* — fjiovoyfvTJ  Te  Kocrfj-ov,  ws  (})T]cr\i>  6  BaaiXddrfs.  Slromat.  V. 
§  11.  p.  090. 


BASILIDESAND  THE  BASILIDIANS.  xli 

a  doctrine  that  we  are  unable  to  connect  with  any  opinions 
which  may  have  suggested  it  or  led  the  way  to  it.  But,  at 
the  same  time,  we  cannot  say  with  confidence,  that  it  may 
not  have  been  held  by  certain  persons,  whom,  for  some 
reason  or  other,  Irenasus  considered  as  followers  of  Basili- 
des. 

IrensBus  ascribes  to  Basilides  another  very  strange  doc- 
trine. He  says,  that,  according  to  him,  the  first  emanation 
of  the  Father,  Intellect,  descended  from  the  Pleroma  in  or- 
der to  deliver  such  as  might  believe  in  him  from  the  power 
of  the  Makers  of  the  World.  He  was  called  both  Christ 
and  Jesus.  He  did  not  suffer  on  the  cross  ;  but  Simon  the 
Cyrenian,  who  was  compelled  to  bear  his  cross,  was  cruci- 
fied in  his  stead.  He,  as  an  incorporeal  power,  took  what 
form  he  would,*  and  upon  this  occasion  assumed  the  form 
of  Simon, — imposing,  as  is  implied,  his  own  form  upon 
Simon,  —  and  stood  by  laughing  at  his  persecutors,  while 
Simon  suffered. 

The  story  of  Irenseus,  if  credible  of  any  individuals,  is 
not  credible  of  any  Christians ;  and  in  regard  to  Basilides  is 
entirely  set  aside  by  the  charge  of  Clement  against  him, 
that  he  believed  that  Jesus,  like  others,  suffered  in  conse- 
quence of  his  sins,  or  of  his  tendency  to  sin;  —  a  charge 
which,  considering  Clement's  acquaintance  with  the  writings 
of  Basilides,  proves  that  he  held  no  such  doctrine  as  that 
ascribed  to  him  by  Irenseus.  What  foundation  for  the  story 
of  Irenseus  there  may  have  been  in  the  opinions  of  any 
pseudo-Christians  or  heretics,  it  is  impossible  to  say  ;  but 
some  foundation  it  probably  had.  For,  as  we  are  informed 
by  Sale,  in  one  of  his  notes  on  the  Koran,  "  it  is  the  constant 
doctrine  of  the  Mohammedans,  that  it  was  not  Jesus  himself 
who  was  crucified,  but  somebody  else  in  his  shape  and  re- 

*  See  before,  p.  177,  seqq. 
VOL.  III.  48 


xlii  ADDITIONAL  NOTES. 

semblance.  The  person  crucified  some  will  have  to  be  a 
spy  that  was  sent  to  entrap  him  ;  others,  that  it  was  one 
Titian,  who,  by  the  direction  of  Judas,  entered  in  at  a  win- 
dow of  the  house  where  Jesus  was,  to  kill  him ;  and  others, 
that  it  was  Judas  himself."  *  This  doctrine  is  plainly  ex- 
pressed in  the  Koran.  "The  Jews,"  it  is  there  said,  "  slew 
not  Jesus,  neither  crucified  him  ;  but  he  was  represented  by 
one  in  his  likeness."! 

One  other  subject  relating  to  those  whom  Irenaeus  called 
Basilidians  requires  explanation.  They  gave,  it  is  said,  to 
"  their  Prince  "  the  name  of  Abraxas  or  Abrasax.  Who 
this  "  Prince"  was  is  not  defined  by  Irenseus  or  Theodoret.| 
The  Author  of  the  Addition  to  Tertullian,§  and  Epiphani- 
us,  II  represent  him  as  the  Supreme  Divinity.  But  their  au- 
thority is  of  no  worth.  The  numerical  value  of  the  Greek 
letters  composing  either  name  is  three  hundred  and  sixty- 
five,  and  the  names  are  supposed  to  have  been  formed  to 
express  this  value. 

There  are  to  be  found  in  different  cabinets  in  Europe  a 
large  number  of  engraved  stones,  evidently  of  Egyptian 


•  Sale's  Koran,  I.  60. 

]  Ibid.  pp.  112,113. —  Long  after  the  composition  of  the  Koran, 
Photius  says  tliat  he  found  the  story  in  a  book  mentioned  before 
(pp.  179,  180,  note)  as  quoted  by  him,  called  "  The  Circuits  of  the 
Apostles."     Photii  Bibliotheca,  col.  292. 

I  Irenaeus  says,  "  Esse  autem  Frincipem  illorum  'A^pa^a?."  As  he 
has  just  been  speaking  of  the  three  hundred  and  sixly-five  heavens 
of  his  supposed  Basilidians,  "  illorum  "  appears  at  first  view  to  refer 
to  them.  But  Tlieodoret,  in  his  account  of  the  Basilidians,  evidently 
copied  that  of  Irenasus,  and,  in  a  passage  unconnected  with  any  men- 
tion of  those  heavens,  he  says,  Elvai  Be  top  "Apxovra  avrav  ^rjaiv 
A/3pao-af  (Hasret.  Fab.  Lib.  L  n.  4.  Opp.  IV.  195)  Here  by 
nvTuiv  he  must  have  intended  the  Basilidians 

§   De  Prcescript.  Haeretic.  c.  40.  p.  219. 

II  Hffires.  XXIV,  §§7,8,  pp.  73,  74. 


BASILIDES  AND  THE  BASILIDIANS.         xliii 

origin,  and  bearing  figures  and  inscriptions  relating  to  the 
mythology  of  Egypt.*  A  comparatively  very  small  num- 
ber have  upon  them  the  name  Abrasax.t  This  name  being 
equivalent  to  Abraxas,  they  have  hence  all  been  denomi- 
nated "  Abraxas  gems,"  or  "  Abraxas  stones  "  ;  and  there 
has  been  a  popular  error,  which  is  not  yet  wholly  extinct, 
though  it  can  be  held  by  no  one  who  has  paid  any  proper 
attention  to  the  subject,  that  these  stones,  generally,  were 
wrought  for  the  use  of  the  Basilidians.  This  error  runs 
through  the  account  given  of  them  by  Montfaucon  in  his 
"  Antiquite  Expliquee."  But  it  is  evident,  from  a  mere  in- 
spection of  the  great  number  of  figures  which  he  has  pub- 
lished, that  they  are  generally  of  heathen  origin,  and  bear 
no  trace  of  any  relation  to  Christianity.  This  fact  has  been 
fully  illustrated  by  Beausobre  |  and  Lardner.§  As  those 
writers,  however,  suppose,  there  may  be  among  these  stones 
some  which  were  wrought  for  pseudo-Christians. 

In  regard  to  the  use  of  the  name  Abrasax,  the  most  prob- 
able conjecture  is,  that  it  is  found  on  these  heathen  gems  as 
a  name  of  the  Sun,  considered  as  ruling  over  the  three 
hundred  and  sixty-five  days  of  the  year.  From  the  heath- 
ens it  may  have  been  borrowed  by  some  pseudo-Christian 

*  Montfaucon  has  treated  of  these  gems  in  the  second  volume  of 
his  "  Antiquite  Expliquee,"  and  given  numerous  engravings  of  them. 

t  On  one  of  the  stones  published  by  Montfaucon  (Plate  49,  No.  G), 
the  name  is  spelt  "  Abrasat."  (The  Author  of  the  Addition  to  Ter- 
tullian,  according  to  the  text  in  Le  Prieur's  edition,  gives  the  name 
"  Abraxat.")  On  others  (as  Plate  49,  No.  30,  Plate  51,  Nos.  35,  36), 
it  is  spelt  "  Abrasas."  According  to  either  spelling,  the  numerical 
value  of  the  letters  would  not  amount  to  365.  I  have  not  observed 
any  one  on  which  it  is  spelt  "  Abraxas." 

t  Histoire  du  Manicheisme,  II.  50,  seqq. 

§  History  of  the  Heretics,  Ch.  II.  Section  IG,  seqq.  Works  (4to. 
1815),  Vol.  IV.  p.  545,  seqq. 


xliv  ADDITIONAL  NOTES. 

or  heretical  Gnostics  to  denote  the  Creator,  whom  they  re- 
garded as  having  his  residence  in  the  Sun,  or  as  the  inform- 
ing genius  of  the  Sun,*  Such  may  have  been  the  origin  of 
the  story  respecting  its  use  by  those  called  Basilidians.t 

*  See  before,  pp.  22,  162, 163.  According  to  Porphyry,  as  quoted 
by  Eusebius  (Praeparat.  Evang.  Lib.  III.  c.  4.  p.  93),  the  Egyptians 
considered  the  Sun  as  the  Creator  or  Architect  of  the  world.  This 
correspondence  of  opinion  with  the  Gnostics  might  give  further  occa- 
sion for  transferring  the  enigmatical  name  of  the  Sun,  Abrasax,  to  the 
Gnostic  Creator. 

t  We  have  repeatedly  had  occasion  to  see  what  difficulty  there  is 
in  ascertaining  the  truth  concerning  the  Gnostics  from  ancient  writ- 
ers, and  sometimes  to  remark  the  errors  of  modern  writers  concerning 
them.  I  will  here  give  an  example  of  the  carelessness  with  which 
their  history  has  been  written  in  our  own  times. 

Matter  (to  whose  work  I  have  before  referred),  in  concluding  his 
account  of  Basilides  and  the  Basilidians,  mentions  the  immoralities 
into  which  he  supposes  the  Basilidians  to  have  fallen  in  the  fourth 
and  fifth  centuries,  and  then  proceeds  thus  (Histoire  Critique  du 
Gnosticisme,  Tome  II.  pp.  97,  98)  :  — 

"  Such  was  the  end  of  a  sect  of  theosophists,  of  which  Clement  of 
Alexandria  had  said  in  express  words,  —  'The  worship  of  these  Gnos- 
tics consists  in  continual  attention  to  the  soul,  in  meditations  on  the 
Divinity  regarded  as  inexhaustible  love.'  [Stromat.  VII.  p.  829,  lin. 
43.  Ed.  Potter.]  '  Their  science  has  two  parts.  The  first  relates  to 
divine  things;  considers  the  First  Cause,  by  which  all  has  been  made, 
and  without  which  nothing  exists ;  examines  the  essence  of  things 
which  penetrate  each  other  and  are  connected  together ;  questions  the 
powers  of  nature,  and  demands  to  what  end  they  conduct.  The 
second  part  treats  of  human  things,  of  the  condition  of  man,  of  what 
he  is  by  nature,  of  what  he  is  not,  of  what  he  must  do  and  suffer. 
Here  they  examine  the  vices  and  the  virtues,  the  good,  the  evil,  and 
the  indifferent,  or  those  things  which  lie  between.'  [lb.  p.  838, 
lin.  8.] 

"  Clement  had  added  to  these  characteristics, — '  Basilides  says  that 
the  Supreme  Being  should  be  honored,  not  on  certain  days,  but 
tiirough  the  whole  of  life,  in  the  whole  of  conduct.  [lb.  p.  851,  lin. 
17.]     The  Gnostic  prays,  because  he  knows  that  prayer  may  have 


BASILIDES  AND  THE  BASILIDIANS.  xlv 

place  everywhere,  and  that  he  is  always  heard.'  "  [lb.  p.  851,  lin.  34, 
lin.  37,  p.  852,  lin.  27.] 

"  All  these  passages,"  says  Matter,  "  are  taken  from  the  seventh 
book  of  the  Stromata." 

1  have  referred  particularly  (in  brackets)  to  the  places  where  they 
are  to  be  found.  They  are  translated  inaccurately,  but  this  is  com- 
paratively a  fact  of  small  importance. 

In  the  passages  adduced  by  Matter,  Clement  has  no  reference  to 
Basilides  or  the  Basilidians.  On  the  contrary,  he  is  speaking  of  the 
true  Christian  Gnostic,  according  to  his  own  conception  of  him. 

Matter  says,  that  Clement  quotes  certain  words  of  Basilides,  The 
name  of  Basilides  does  not  occur  in  any  connection  with  those  words. 
The  passage  said  to  be  quoted  from  him  is  composed  of  fragments  of 
different  sentences  of  Clement  himself. 

It  is  difficult  to  imagine  what  may  have  been  the  origin  of  these 
errors.  It  is  scarcely  possible  that  any  one  should  undertake  to  write 
a  history  of  the  Gnostics,  without  being  acquainted  with  the  fact  that 
Clement  familiarly  uses  the  term  "  Gnostic,"  not  to  denote  a  Gnostic 
heretic,  but  an  enlightened  Christian.  Even  supposing  this  possible, 
the  very  connection  of  the  passages  quoted  by  Matter  makes  it  evident 
at  first  sight  that  they  have  no  reference  to  heretical  Gnostics.  And 
if,  through  some  hallucination,  any  one  might  suppose  them  to  have 
such  a  reference,  still  no  reason  appears  why  he  should  suppose  Bas- 
ilidians to  have  been  particularly  intended.  Nor  is  it  easy  to  divine 
by  what  mistake  certain  words  of  Clement  have  been  put  together 
and  ascribed  to  Basilides. 

Matter  writes  with  a  certain  degree  of  vivacity  and  talent,  and, 
considering  that  he  is  a  pupil  of  the  German  school,  with  what  may 
be  regarded  as  remarkable  clearness  of  method  and  meaning.  But 
he  has  composed,  not  a  history, but  a  romance  founded  on  the  history, 
of  the  Gnostics.  His  general  views  concerning  them  appear  to  have 
been  rather  suggested  by  his  imagination  than  to  have  been  the  result 
of  any  investigation  of  the  subject.  His  work  is  full  of  particular  er- 
rors of  the  same  class  with  those  which  have  just  been  pointed  out, 
though  it  cannot  be  supposed  that  many  of  them  are  equally  extraor- 
dinary. Matter,  however,  is  not  the  only  one,  among  modern  writers 
concerning  the  Gnostics,  to  whose  authority  if  an  inexperienced  stu- 
dent defer,  he  may  find  himself  following  a  blind  gvide  through  the 
blind  darkness  —  "  Per  le  tenebre  cieche  un  cieco  duce," 


NOTE  C. 

(See  pp.  170  and  218.) 

ON    THE    GOSPEL   OF   MARCION. 


The  gospel  of  Marcion  is  represented  by  Irenfeiis  and 
TerhiUian  as  being  a  mutilated  copy  of  the  Gospel  of  Luke, 
from  which  that  heretic  had  struck  out  passages  which  he 
could  not  reconcile  with  his  doctrines.  It  was  a  book  of 
much  notoriety,  and  this  representation  proceeds  from  writ- 
ers who  must  have  been  fully  acquainted  with  it.  They 
are  followed  by  Epiphanius,  who  likewise  shows,  by  his 
particular  remarks  on  the  book,  that  he  had  examined  it 
throughout,  and  whose  testimony  as  to  the  fact  in  question 
there  is  no  reason  to  distrust.  The  fact  is  also  alluded  to 
by  many  other  early  writers  ;  as,  for  example,  by  Origen, 
who,  in  speaking  of  the  adulteration  of  one  of  his  own 
writings,  says,  —  "  See  how  he  has  corrected  our  disputa- 
tion, in  the  same  way  as  Marcion  corrected  the  Gospels."* 

But,  in  the  last  half  of  the  last  century,  there  sprang  up 
in  Germany  an  hypothesis,  which  for  a  long  time  obtained 
wide  reception  among  the  theologians  of  that  country,  name- 
ly, that  the  gospel  of  Marcion  was  not  a  mutilated  copy  of 
that  of  Luke,  but  a  work  derived  from  the  same  written 
sources  with  Luke's  Gospel,  and  antecedent  to  it  in  that 
progressive  growth  of  gospels  which  finally  resulted  in  the 
production  of  those  of  Luke,  Matthew,  and  Mark.  The 
theory  of  this  gradual  formation  of  the  first  three  Gospels 

*  Epist.  ad  Alexandrinos.  Opp.  I.  C.  Conf.  Ex  Comment,  in  Eze- 
cliiel.     Opp.  III.  35y,  353. 


THE  GOSPEL  OF  MARCION.  xlvii 

has  been  examined  in  the  first  volume  of  this  work  ;  and  if 
it  be  wholly  untenable,  as  I  trust  it  has  appeared  to  be,  then 
the  opinion  that  has  been  maintained  respecting  Marcion's 
gospel,  since  it  depends  on  its  connection  with  that  theory 
for  any  show  of  plausibility,  must  perish  with  it.  This, 
perhaps,  is  all  that  it  is  necessary  to  say  concerning  the 
subject ;  especially  as  the  opinion  has  been  confuted,*  and, 
I  believe,  generally  abandoned,  in  the  country  of  its  birth. 
But  it  may  be  more  satisfactory,  and  not  uninstructive,  to 
enter  into  some  explanation,  and  to  state  the  proofs  of  what 
for  fifteen  centuries  was  the  unquestioned  belief  respecting 
Marcion's  gospel. 

The  ancient  testimony  concerning  this  book  is  first  to  be 
attended  to.  Irenaeus,  after  a  brief  account  of  Marcion's 
doctrines,  says,  —  "  Moreover,  he  mutilated  the  Gospel  ac- 
cording to  Luke,  taking  away  all  that  is  recorded  of  the 
generation  of  the  Lord,  and  many  parts  of  his  discourses 
in  which  he  clearly  recognizes  the  Creator  of  this  universe 
as  his  Father  ;  so  that  Marcion  thus  gave  to  his  disciples, 
not  the  Gospel  [not  the  whole  history  and  doctrine  of 
Christ],  but  a  fragment  of  the  Gospel,  persuading  them  that 
he  was  better  acquainted  with  the  truth  than  the  Apostles 
who  have  given  us  the  Gospel."  t  The  reason  assigned  by 
Irenajus  for  not  undertaking  a  particular  confutation  of  the 
Marcionitcs  in  his  general  work  against  lieresies  has  been 
already  quoted.|  It  occurs  in  connection  with  the  passage 
just  given,  and  well  deserves  attention  in  reference  to  our 
present  subject :  —  "  But  because  he  alone  has  dared  open- 

*  Particularly  by  Hahn,  in  his  work  entitled  "  Das  Evangelium 
Marcions  in  seiner  ursprilnglichen  Gestalt,"  and  by  Olshausen  in  his 
"  Echtheit  der  Evangeiien  erwiesen,"  pp.  111-215. 

t  Lib.  I.  c.  27.  §  2.  p.  106.  t  See  Vol.  II  p.  95. 


xlviii  ADDITIONAL   NOTES. 

ly  to  mutilate  the  Scriptures,  and  has  gone  beyond  all  others 
in  shamelessly  disparaging  the  character  of  God  [the  Crea- 
tor], I  shall  oppose  him  by  himself,  confuting  him  from  his 
own  writings,  and,  with  the  help  of  God,  effect  his  overthrow 
by  means  of  those  discourses  of  our  Lord  and  his  Apostle 
[St.  Paul]  which  are  respected  by  him  and  which  he  him- 
self uses."  *  TertuUian  and  Epiphanius,  in  confuting  Mar- 
cion,  proposed,  as  we  shall  see,  to  pursue  the  same  course 
of  appealing  only  to  his  mutilated  Gospel  and  his  mutilated 
collection  of  St.  Paul's  Epistles,  and  of  not  quoting  against 
him  any  portions  of  Scripture  but  those  the  authority  of 
which  he  admitted. 

There  are  various  other  passages  in  which  Irenaeus  af- 
firms the  fact  that  Marcion's  gospel  was  a  mutilated  copy  of 
liuke's.  Speaking  of  the  Gnostics,  he  says  :  —  "  They  have 
turned  away  in  their  doctrines  from  him  who  is  God  [the 
Creator],  and  think  that  they  have  discovered  more  than  the 
Apostles,  having  found  out  another  God.  They  maintain 
that  the  Apostles  still  thought  with  the  Jews,  when  they  an- 
nounced the  Gospel,  but  that  they  themselves  are  more  pure 
in  their  belief  and  wiser  than  the  Apostles.  Hence  Marcion 
and  his  followers  have  been  led  to  mutilate  the  Scriptures ; 
some  they  reject  altogether ;  others,  as  the  Gospel  of  Luke 
and  the  Epistles  of  Paul,  they  shorten,  and  maintain  that 
what  they  have  thus  abridged  is  alone  of  authority.  But 
we,  in  another  work,  with  the  help  of  God,  shall  confute 
them  from  those  "portions  which  they  yet  preserve."  t 

TertuUian,  besides  composing  an  entire  Treatise  in  five 
Books  against  the  Marcionites,  refers  to  them  often  in  his 


*  Lib.  I.e.  27.  §  4.  p.  106. 

t  Lib.  in.  c.  12.  §  12.  p.  198.  —  Besides  the  passages  above  quoted, 
see  Lib.  III.  c.  11.  §  7.  p.  190.  Ibid.  §  9.  p.  192.  Lib.  IIL  c.  14. 
§§  3,  4.  p.  202. 


THE  GOSPEL  OF  MARCION.  xlix 

other  writings.  He  uniformly  represents  the  gospel  of 
Marcion  as  a  mutilated  copy  of  that  of  Luke.  This  fact  is 
so  often  brought  into  view  by  TertuUian,  that  it  would  be 
idle  to  produce  at  length  the  particular  passages  in  which  it 
is  stated,  referred  to,  or  implied.  "It  is  clear,"  he  says, 
*'  that  the  Gospel  of  Luke  had  come  down  entire  till  the 
sacrilege  of  Marcion."*  In  the  fourth  Book  of  his  work 
"  Against  Marcion,"  he  proposes  to  confute  him  from  his 
own  gospel,  making  use  of  no  passages  of  Scripture  but  such 
as  were  found  in  it.  Ex  his  revincendus  es  qucB  recepisti  ; 
"  You  are  to  be  confuted,"  he  says,  "  from  what  you  have 
received."  f  This  purpose  he  repeatedly  avows,  and  accord- 
ingly he  goes  through  Marcion's  gospel  in  order,  remarking 
on  the  passages  which  were  to  his  purpose,  and  occasion- 
ally taking  notice  of  its  omissions.  In  another  work  (De 
Carne  Christi  J),  he  speaks  of  that  book,  in  which,  in  reply- 
ing to  Marcion,  he  had  appealed  to  Marcion's  own  gospel.§ 

*  Advers.  Marcion.  Lib.  IV.  c.  5.  p.  416. 

t  Ibid.  c.  34.  p.  449.  |  Cap.  7.  p.  312. 

§  As  I  have  formerly  mentioned  (see  before,  p.  220,  note),  Hahn 
has  attempted  the  restoration  of  Marcion's  gospel,  principally  from 
the  information  afforded  by  TertuUian  and  Epiphanius,  and  has  given 
it  in  what  is  probably  very  like  its  original  state.  In  other  words,  the 
Gospel  of  Luke  has  been  exhibited  by  him  with  the  omissions  and  al- 
terations made  by  Marcion. 

The  last  writer  of  any  note  who  has  maintained  that  Marcion's 
gospel  was  not  a  mutilated  copy  of  the  Gospel  of  Luke  is  Eiclihorn. 
He  contends  (Einleit.  in  das  N.  T.  I.  71,  note),  that  TertuUian  was 
not  acquainted  with  Marcion's  gospel.  This  supposition,  as  may  ap- 
pear from  the  statements  I  have  made,  implies  great  ignorance  of  what 
is  to  be  found  in  TertuUian.  In  connection  with  this,  Eichhorn  main- 
tains (Ibid,  pp.  67,68;  p.  72,  note),  that  TertuUian  did  not  confidently 
hold  the  opinion  that  Marcion's  gospel  was  derived  from  Luke's;  and 
that  he  expresses  himself  with  uncertainty  on  the  subject.  His  main 
argument  is  founded  on  the  concluding  sentence  of  the  following  pas- 
sage from  TertuUian.     (Advers.  Marcion.  Lib.  IV,  c,  2,  p.  414.) 

"  Marcion  assigns  no  author  to  his  gospel ;  as  if  it  were  a  greater 
VOL.  III.  49 


1  ADDITIONAL  NOTES. 

Epiphanius,  like  Tertullian,  undertook  to  confute  Marcion 
from  the  passages  which  Marcion  himself  retained.*  He 
accordingly  first  gives  a  long  series  of  such  passages  as  he 
proposed  to  use,  intermingling  it  with  notices  of  omissions 
and  of  supposed  or  real  corruptions  in  Marcion's  gospel,  as 
it  existed  in  his  time ;  and  then  repeats  those  passages,  sub- 
joining the  argument  or  remark  which  he  founded  upon 
each  of  them.  The  information  which  he  affords  is,  as  I 
have  before  said,  of  such  a  nature,  that  there  is  no  reason 
to  distrust  its  essential  correctness.  It  is  evident,  upon  ex- 
amination, that  he  did  not  copy  from  Tertullian,  but  is  an 
independent  authority  ;  and  the  coincidence  of  their  ac- 
counts of  Marcion's  gospel  proves  the  correctness  of  both 
writers.! 

crime  to  forge  a  title  than  to  mangle  the  body  of  a  work.  And  here 
I  might  plant  my  foot,  and  contend  that  a  work  is  not  to  be  received, 
which  does  not  show  its  face,  which  affords  no  ground  of  reliance,  and 
gives  no  promise  of  fidelity,  by  the  fulness  of  its  title,  and  the  due  an- 
nunciation of  its  author.  But  I  prefer  to  meet  him  at  every  point,  and 
will  not  conceal  what  may  be  perceived  from  our  Gospels.  For,  of 
those  historians  whom  we  possess,  it  appears  that  Marcion  selected 
Luke  for  his  mutilations." 

"  Lucam  videtur  Marcion  elegisse  quem  caederet."  These  words 
Eichhorn  understands  thus  :  "  Marcion  seems  to  have  selected  Luke 
for  his  mutilations  "  ;  and  hence  concludes  that  Tertullian  expresses 
himself  doubtfully.  The  word  videtur  is  in  itself  ambiguous  ;  but  that 
it  has  not  here  the  sense  ascribed  to  it  by  Eichhorn  is  evident  from 
what  precedes  the  sentence  in  which  it  stands,  and  from  the  discus- 
sion that  follows,  in  which  Tertullian  assumes  without  liesitation  that 
Marcion  did  found  his  gospel  on  that  of  Luke,  —  to  say  nothing  of 
all  that  Tertullian  has  elsewhere  affirmed,  and  of  all  the  other  evi- 
dence which  determines  that  this  fact  was  notorious  and  undisputed. 

*  Hferes.  XLII.  Opp.  L  309,  seqq. 

t  Epiphanius  introduces  the  passages  which  he  means  to  use  in 
confuting  Marcion,  by  saying  that  he  had  "  selected  from  Marcion's 
gospel  and  his  Apostolicon  [that  is,  his  collection  of  St.  Paul's  Epis- 
tles] a  series  of  those  passages  by  which  he  might  be  confuted,"  — 


THE  GOSPEL  OF  MARCION.  li 

What  reply,  then,  did  the  Marcionltes  make  to  this  clear, 
long-continued,  unhesitating  statenient  of  their  opponents, 

"  passages  in  which  he  has  foohsiily  retained  the  declarations  of  our 
Saviour  and  ins  Apostles  against  himself."  "  Some  of  them,"  he 
says,  "  Marcion  corrupted  by  alterations ;  but  there  are  others  left  un- 
changed by  him,  by  which  he  may  be  confuted  "  ;  and  Epiphanius 
proceeds  to  state  what  he  expects  to  prove  from  the  passages  which 
he  is  about  to  produce,  (pp.310,  311.)  His  main  purpose,  and  conse- 
quently the  general  character  of  the  passages  which  he  has  brought 
together,  are  not  only  evident  from  the  use  he  has  made  of  those  pas- 
sages, but  are  explained  by  him  over  and  over  again  in  the  plainest 
manner ;  so  that  it  might  seem  impossible  for  one  who  has  read  what 
he  has  written  to  fall  into  any  mistake  concerning  the  matter.  (See, 
in  addition  to  what  has  been  referred  to,  p.  311,  C.  p.  322.  pp.  349, 
350.  p.  371.  pp.  373,374.) 

But  Epiphanius,  in  the  collection  of  passages  he  has  brought  to- 
gether, takes  notice  of  the  omissions  and  changes  of  words  made  in 
them  by  Marcion,  or  his  followers;  and  likewise,  incidentally  to  his 
main  purpose,  mentions  several  portions  of  Luke's  Gospel  which  he 
says  Marcion  had  expunged.  These  facts,  I  suppose,  have  given  oc- 
casion to  an  erroneous  Latin  title  (to  which  there  is  nothing  corre- 
sponding in  the  Greek;,  prefixed  to  the  passages  in  Petavius's  edition 
of  his  Works.  They  are  entitled  "  Pas.sages  of  Scripture  corrupted 
by  Marcion."  They  should  have  been  called  "  Passages  retained  by 
Marcion,  from  which  he  may  be  confuted." 

But  Eichhorn,  apparently  led  astray  by  this  erroneous  title,  and 
proceeding  without  further  examination,  has  regarded  the  collection 
made  by  Epiphanius  as  intended  for  a  collection  of  passages  in  which 
the  text  of  Marcion  varied  from  that  of  Luke,  and  which  Epiphanius, 
in  consequence,  produced  only  as  corruptions  of  Luke's  text  by  Mar- 
cion. The  mistake  was  partially  pointed  out  in  a  review  of  his  work, 
to  which  he  adverts  in  a  note  to  the  second  edition  of  his  first  volume, 
(pp.  65,  66.)  The  opinion  of  the  reviewer  was,  "  that  that  confused 
writer,  Epiphanius,  in  giving  the  variations  of  Marcion 's  text,  intro- 
duced among  them,  altogether  out  of  place,  some  passages  which  he 
thought  he  could  use  for  his  confutation."  But  this  fact,  if  true, 
Eichhorn  contends,  would  not  affect  his  conclusions. 

Thus  persevering  in  his  misconception  of  the  purpose  of  Epipha- 
nius, and  of  the  character  of  his  citations,  Eichhorn  retains  in  his  sec- 


lii  ADDITIONAL  NOTES. 

that  their  gospel  was  a  mutilated  copy  of  Luke's  ?  From 
any  writer  of  the  first  three  centuries  it  does  not  appear  that 

ond  edition  the  account  of  Marcion's  gospel,  and  the  whole  accom- 
panying body  of  extraordinary  criticisms  and  remarks  which  he  had 
founded  upon  that  error.  (See  pp.  43-84.  pp.  G50-67.5,  and  many 
passages  in  that  portion  of  his  work  which  treats  "  Of  the  First 
Three  Gospels  generally.")  His  mistake  was  facilitated  by  the  facts, 
that  Epiphanius  does  mention  omissions  and  changes  in  Marcion's 
gospel,  that  he  does  not  quote  with  particular  regard  to  accuracy,  and 
that  he  often  gives  passages  in  an  abridged  form,  citing  a  few  words 
which  he  deemed  sufficient  to  recall  them  to  the  recollection  of  the 
reader.  Passages  thus  abbreviated  Eiclihorn  has  considered  as  so 
standing  in  the  text  of  Marcion.  To  illustrate  by  a  single  example, 
Epiphanius  thus  quotes  Luke  ix.  40,  41  :  —  "/  besought  thy  disci' 
■pies.  —  They  could  not  cast  him  out.  —  And  to  them,  0  faithless  race, 
how  long  shall  I  he  with  you?''  This  Eichhorn  conceives  to  have 
been  the  reading  of  Marcion's  gospel.  Thus  Epiphanius's  notices 
of  Marcion's  omissions  and  variations,  his  own  inaccuracies,  and  his 
abridged  mode  of  quotation,  have  enabled  Eichhorn  to  give  a  series  of 
comments  on  many  of  the  passages  adduced,  which  is  conformed  to 
his  fundamental  mistake  concerning  their  character,  but  which  at  the 
same  time  is  full  of  particular  oversights  and  errors.  Still  he  is 
compelled  to  say  (p.  55),  that  "Epiphanius's  account  of  the  varia- 
tions in  Marcion's  gospel  is  often  so  defective,  that  it  is  uncertain  in 
what  they  consisted." 

Eichhorn  has  thus  founded  his  whole  discussion  concerning  Mar- 
cion's gospel  on  two  essential  misconceptions.  Tertullian  and  Epi- 
phanius are  the  only  writers  who  have  given  particular  specifications 
of  its  contents.  But  though  Tertullian,  in  the  fourth  Book  of  his  work 
"  Against  Marcion,"  professes  to  confute  him  solely  from  his  own 
gospel,  and  goes  through  it  for  this  purpose  from  beginning  to  end, 
commenting  on  a  great  number  of  passages,  yet  Eichhorn  asserts  that 
Tertullian  had  no  copy  of  that  gospel  before  him.  He  throws  him- 
self, therefore,  on  Epiphanius  as  his  sole  authority  ;  and  he  has  wholly 
mistaken  the  general  purpose  and  character  of  the  quotations  given 
by  Epiphanius. 

It  may  seem  as  if  it  were  scarcely  worth  while  thus  particularly  to 
point  out  the  errors  of  an  individual  writer.  But  it  is  to  be  recollect- 
ed, that  Eichhorn  is  the  last  able  and  elaborate  defender  of  an  opinion 


THE  GOSPEL  OF   MARCION.  lUi 

ihey  denied  the  fact.  With  one  exception,  it  does  not  ap- 
pear from  any  writer  of  any  age.  With  this  exception,  the 
charge  lias  come  down  to  us  without  an  intimation  that  it 
was  contradicted. 

The  exception  to  which  I  refer  is  to  be  found  in  a  work 
which  I  have  formerly  mentioned  as  an  inaccurate  compila- 
tion to  which  little  credit  is  to  be  given,  the  Dialogue  de 
Recta  Fide*  The  Marcionite  who  is  introduced  in  this 
Dialogue  is  represented  as  saying  that  "there  is  but  one 
Gospel,  which  was  written  by  Christ "  ;  and  when  it  is  ob- 
jected to  him  in  the  form  of  a  question,  "Did  the  Lord 
himself  write,  that  he  was  crucified,  and  rose  again  on  the 
third  day  ?  "  the  brief  answer  assigned  to  him  is :  "  The 
Apostle  Paul  added  it."t 

That  in  the  fourth  century,  before  which  time  this  Dia- 
logue was  not  written,  a  Marcionite  might  be  found  who 
maintained  this  absurd  opinion  is  possible ;  though  the  im- 
plication of  the  writer  of  the  Dialogue,  that  such  was  the 
fact,  does  not  go  far  to  render  it  probable.  But  it  is  incred- 
ible, that  Marcion  himself,  or  his  followers,  during  the  sec- 
ond century,  should  have  held  such  an  opinion.  The  folly 
of  the  statement  assigned  to  the  Marcionite  of  the  fourth 
century,  whether  with  or  without  foundation,  serves  only  to 
show  that  no  plausible  history  of  Marcion's  gospel,  different 
from  that  given  by  his  opponents,  was  known  to  his  follow- 
ers at  that  period. 

We  may,  then,  affirm  that  there  is  no  evidence,  that  Mar- 
cion or  his  followers,  during  the  first  three  centuries,  gave 


respecting  Marcion's  gospel  long  current  in  Germany,  that  he  had 
the  benefit  of  all  the  labors  of  his  predecessors,  and  that  this  opinion 
was  a  main  support  of  the  theory  of  llie  gradual  formation  of  the  first 
three  Gospels. 

*  See  Vol.  II.  p.  99,  seqq.  t  Apud  Origcnis  0pp.  1.808. 


liv  ADDITIONAL  NOTES. 

any  account  of  the  origin  of  his  gospel  different  from  that 
given  by  their  opponents.  But,  if  the  theory  which  has 
been  formed  for  them  in  modern  times  were  true,  they  un- 
doubtedly would  have  said  what  has  been  said  for  them. 
They  would  have  gloried  in  possessing  a  more  ancient  gos- 
pel, favoring  their  own  doctrines,  of  which  their  catholic 
opponents  used  an  interpolated  copy ;  and  their  opponents 
could  not  but  have  given  abundant  attention  to  such  a  claim. 
We  should  have  found  not  a  few  remarks  upon  it  in  the 
work  of  Tertullian  ;  nor  is  it  possible  that  the  fathers  should 
for  two  centuries  and  a  half,  from  Irenseus  to  Theodoret, 
have  continued  to  repeat  that  Marcion's  gospel  was  a  muti- 
lated copy  of  Luke's,  without  ever  attempting  to  prove  the 
fact,  or  noticing  that  the  Marcionites  denied  it,  but  apparent- 
ly regarding  it  as  notorious  and  undisputed.  The  fact,  then, 
is  established  not  merely  by  the  evidence  of  their  catholic 
opponents,  but  by  the  circumstance,  that  it  was  not  denied 
by  the  earlier  Marcionites  themselves,  and  that,  if  those  of 
a  later  period  did  in  fact  deny  it,  the  supposition  which  they 
brought  forward  is  not  of  a  character  to  deserve  a  moment's 
consideration. 

But  so  far  were  Marcion  and  his  followers  from  denying 
the  origin  assigned  to  their  gospel,  that,  as  I  have  formerly 
explained,*  they  asserted  principles  the  express  bearing  of 
which  was  to  justify  their  omission  of  passages  in  the  Gos- 
pel of  Luke,  and  their  rejection  of  the  authority  of  the  other 
three  Gospels.  They  held,  that  the  Apostles  generally,  when 
they  preached  the  Gospel,  were  under  the  influence  of  their 
erroneous  Jewish  faith.  On  this  principle,  Irenoeus,  as  be- 
fore quoted,t  says,  "  Marcion  and  his  followers  have  been 
led  to  mutilate  the  Scriptures."  But  St.  Paul  they  regarded 
as  much  more  free  from  Jewish  prejudices  than  the  other 

*  See  before,  p.  200,  seqq.  t  See  before,  p.  xlviii. 


THE  GOSPEL  OF  MARCION.  Iv 

Apostles,  "  Marcion,"  says  Tertullian,  "  having  got  hold 
of  the  Epistle  to  the  Galatians,  in  which  St.  Paul  finds  fault 
with  the  Apostles  themselves  for  not  walking  steadily  ac- 
cording to  the  truth  of  the  Gospel,  and  in  which  also  he 
accuses  certain  false  Apostles  of  corrupting  the  Gospel  of 
Christ,*  endeavours  to  destroy  the  reputation  of  those  Gos- 
pels which  are  truly  such,  and  have  come  forth  under  the 
names  of  Apostles  or  Apostolic  men,  in  order  that  he  may 
transfer  to  his  own  the  credit  which  he  takes  from  them."  t 
In  representing  the  Apostles  and  first  teachers  of  Christian- 
ity as  having  fallen  into  anti-Gnostic  errors  through  their 
Jewish  prejudices,  the  doctrine  of  Marcion  was  the  same  as 
that  of  other  Gnostics.  On  this  ground  other  Gnostics  refused 
to  assent  throughout  to  the  authority  of  their  writings,  and 
especially  to  defer  to  all  their  representations  of  the  teach- 
ing of  Christ  as  contained  in  the  Gospels. |  Marcion,  with 
the  boldness  which  appears  to  have  belonged  to  his  charac- 
ter, proceeded  a  step  farther,  and  struck  out  the  passages, 
the  authority  of  which  he  did  not  admit,  from  the  gospel 
which  he  prepared  for  his  followers.  Nor,  after  rejecting 
any  appeal  to  the  other  three  Gospels,  was  it  strange  that 
he  should  thus  free  himself  from  those  passages  in  the  Gos- 
pel of  Luke  which  he  regarded  as  objectionable. 

It  is  obvious,  from  the  preceding  statements,  that,  in  the 
charge  which  the  Marcionites  brought  against  the  Apostles 
of  holding  certain  Jewish  errors,  they  clearly  implied  their 
belief  that  those  errors  were  to  be  found  in  the  Gospels  as 
originally  written. 

The  mutilation  of  Luke's  Gospel,  which  is  ascribed  to 


*  Galatians,  ch.  ii. 

t  Advers.  Marcionem,  Lib.  IV.  c.  3.  p.  414.     Conf.  De  PriEscript. 
Hteretic.  cap.  22  -  24,  pp  209,  210. 
I  See  before,  pp.  206-210. 


Ivi  ADDITIONAL  NOTES. 

Marcion,  so  far  from  being  a  disputable  or  disputed  fact, 
was,  as  is  stated  by  Tertullian,  continued  by  his  followers. 
It  was  not  simply  a  fact  which  had  taken  place  ;  it  was  a 
process  which  was  still  going  on.  "  They  daily  remodel 
their  gospel,"  says  Tertullian,  "  as  they  are  daily  confuted 
by  us  "  ;  *  —  that  is,  from  passages  which  Marcion  had  suf- 
fered to  remain.  The  followers  of  Marcion  continued  to 
practise  on  the  principles  of  their  master. 

But  still  more,  Marcion  himself  not  only  remodelled  the 
Gospel  of  Luke,  he  extended  the  same  process  of  mutila- 
tion to  the  Epistles  of  Paul.  As  respects  these  Epistles, 
equally  with  Luke's  Gospel,  Irenseus,  Tertullian,  and  Epi- 
phanius  profess  their  design  of  confuting  him  from  the  pas- 
sages he  retained.  Speaking  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans, 
Tertullian  says  :  —  "  What  holes  Marcion  has  made,  partic- 
ularly in  that  Epistle,  by  taking  away  at  his  pleasure,  will 
appear  from  comparing  it  with  our  entire  copy.  Those  pas- 
sages which  he  did  not  see  were  to  be  erased  —  his  negli- 
gences and  oversights  —  will  be  sufficient  for  me  "  ;  t  that 
is,  will  afford  sufficient  materials  for  a  confutation  of  his 
doctrines.  It  is  unnecessary  to  quote  the  other  passages  to 
the  same  purpose,  and  the  particular  specifications  of  the 
charge,  which  might  be  produced  from  Tertullian  and  Epi- 
phanius.  In  regard  to  Marcion's  gospel  and  Luke's,  it  has 
been  pretended,  as  we  have  seen,  that  they  were  two  differ- 
ent gospels ;  but,  as  it  could  not  be  pretended  that  there 
were  originally  two  different  sets  of  St.  Paul's  Epistles,  re- 
sort has  been  had  to  an  hypothesis,  that  the  discrepancies 
between  those  of  the  Marcionites  and  those  of  the  catholic 


*  Advers.  Marcion.  Lib.  IV.  c.  5,  p.  41G.  It  may,  perhaps,  be 
worth  remarking,  tliat  a  similar  charge  is  brought  against  the  Mar- 
cionites in  the  Dialogue  de  Rectd  Fide,  p.  867. 

I  Advers.  Marcion.  Lib.  V.  c.  13.  p.  477. 


THE  GOSPEL  OF  MARCION.  Ivii 

Christians  were  only  various  readings.     But  this  hypothesis 
is  as  little  plausible,  when  applied  to  the  difierences  between 
these  two  sets  of  the  Epistles,  as  it  would  have  been,  if  ap- 
plied to  the  differences  between  the  Gospel  of  Luke  and  the 
gospel  of  Marcion.     The  latter  books  might  with  as  much 
likelihood  have  been  represented  as  copies   of  the  same 
work,  differing   from    each   other   not   through   intentional 
changes,  but  only  through  accidental  various  readings.   The 
solution  which  has  been  offered  of  the  discrepancies  be- 
tween the  copies  of  St.  Paul's  Epistles  used  by  the  Mar- 
cionites  and  those  used  by  the  catholic  Christians  necessa- 
rily implies  that  his  Epistles  had   been  most  negligently 
transcribed  till  toward  the  middle  of  the  second  century, 
and  that,  at  this  time,  all  the  copies  in  which  were  the  gross 
omissions  resulting  from  this   negligence  happened  to  fall 
into  the   hands  of  the   Marcionites  ;    but  that  the  catholic 
Christians,  having  in  their  possession  the  more  perfect  cop- 
ies, ceased,  at  that  period,  to  be  so  negligent  in  their  tran- 
scription, and  perpetuated  them  correctly,  so  tbat  the  extra- 
ordinary various  readings  which  then  existed  have  disap- 
peared from   the  copies  now  extant.     Yet  this  solution  is 
required  as  a  prop  for  the  modern   hypothesis  respecting 
Marcion's  gospel,  to  prevent  it  from  at  once  falling  to  the 
pround.     For  no  one  who  believes   that  he  mutilated  the 
Epistles  of  St.  Paul  will  be  persuaded  that  he  did  not  mu- 
tilate the  Gospel  of  Luke. 

As  I  have  before  observed,  the  modern  hypothesis  re- 
specting Marcion's  gospel  is  essentially  connected  with  the 
theory  of  the  gradual  formation  of  the  first  three  Gospels. 
There  was  such  a  correspondence  between  Marcion's  gos- 
pel and  Luke's,  that  it  admits  of  no  dispute,  that  Luke's 
must  have  been  an  enlargement  of  Marcion's  or  Marcion's 
a  mutilation  of  Luke's.  But  the  former  supposition  is  not 
only  exposed  to  all  those  objections  which  bear  against  the 
VOL.  III.  50 


Iviii  ADDITIONAL  NOTES. 

theory  of  the  gradual  formation  of  the  first  three  Gospels, 
but  to  others  which  are  peculiar  to  it.  The  passages,  so 
far  as  we  are  informed  concerning  them,  found  in  Luke's 
Gospel  and  not  in  Marcion's,  are  such  as  must  have  been 
particularly  obnoxious  to  the  Marcionites.  But  if  the  author 
of  Luke's  Gospel  took  that  afterwards  used  by  Marcion  as 
the  substance  of  his  own,  it  is  scarcely  credible  that  all  or  a 
great  majority  of  those  passages  which  he  added  should 
have  happened  to  bear  this  character.  Nor  can  we  readily 
believe,  that,  if  he  had  so  easily  furnished  himself  with  the 
principal  material  for  his  book,  he  would  have  commenced 
it  with  a  false  statement  respecting  his  own  diligent  in- 
quiries, which  must  have  been  very  liable  to  detection. 

There  appears,  then,  to  be  no  reasonable  doubt,  that,  ac- 
cording to  the  uniform  testimony  of  antiquity,  Marcion's 
gospel  was  a  mutilated  copy  of  Luke's.  To  the  inferences 
which  follow  from  this  fact  we  have  already  attended.* 

The  contrary  hypothesis  is  one  of  many,  tending  to  shake 
the  credit  of  the  Gospels,  which  since  the  latter  part  of  the 
last  century  have  appeared  in  German  theology.  In  this, 
and  in  some  other  instances,  we  have  seen,  in  the  course  of 
the  present  work,  on  what  foundations  those  hypotheses  have 
rested.  The  most  specious  of  their  number,  so  far  as  they 
existed  in  his  day,  were  embodied  by  Eichhorn  in  his  writ- 
ings ;  and  no  modern  German  theologian  has  excelled  him 
in  clearness  of  purpose  and  statement.  So  far  as  regards 
his  modes  of  thought,  reasoning,  and  expression,  he  wrote 
as  other  scholars  had  been  accustomed  to  write.  We  have 
had  occasion  to  take  some  notice  of  his  oversights  and  neg- 
ligences. 

But  there  is  much  in  German  theology  far  more  extraor- 

*  See  before,  particularly  pp.  303-305. 


THE  GOSPEL  OF  MARCION.  lis 

dinary  than  any  thing  to  be  found  in  the  writings  of  Eich- 
horn.     Even  in  his  day,  Paulus  had  published  his  "  Com- 
mentary on  the  Gospels,"  the  main  design  of  which  is  to 
prove,  that,  though  the  accounts  contained  in  them  of  the 
miracles  of  our  Saviour  were  founded  on  facts,  and  are  es- 
sentially true,  yet  those  facts  were  natural  events,  having 
nothing  of  a  miraculous  character.     This  system  of  inter- 
pretation was  for  a  long  time  current  in  Germany  ;  and  one 
might  have  thought  that  common  sense  could  not  be  further 
outraged.     But  the  lowest  degradation  of  intellect  had  not 
been  reached.     A  writer  of  the  present  day,  Strauss,  has 
gained   much  notoriety  by   a  work  entitled  "  The  Life  of 
Jesus,"  the  purpose  of  which  is  to  maintain,  that  the  ac- 
counts of  Jesus  in  the  Gospels  are  mythical.,  as  he  calls  them, 
by  which    he   means    fabulous ;    that   nothing   is  certainly 
known  of  his  true  history,  but  that,  having  been  mistaken 
for  the  Jewish  Messiah,  the  fabulous  accounts  of  him  con- 
tained in  the  Gospels  (which  were  founded  principally  on 
traditions  and  popular  notions  concerning  the  expected  Mes- 
siah) had  their  origin,  for  the  most  part,  among  the  Jewish 
people  in  the  interval  between  his  death  and  the  destruction 
of  Jerusalem,  became  connected  with  his  name,  and  clouded 
over  all  the  real  events  of  his  life.     It  is,  of  course,  impos- 
sible that  so  brief  an  account  should  give  the  impression 
produced  by  the  work  itself.     It  is  a  work  which  to  one  un- 
acquainted with  German  speculation  may  exhibit  the  human 
mind  under  a  new  aspect,  and  cause  a  strange  feeling  of 
wonder  at  the  entire  incapacity  which  it  exhibits  of  taking  a 
comprehensive  and  correct  view  of  a  subject,  or  of  estimat- 
ing what  is  probable  or  possible,  connected  with  much  pre- 
tension, a  degree  of  superficial  acuteness,  and  the  power  of 
writing  two  thick  volumes.     But  this  is  not  the  most  remark- 
able fact  respecting  it.     Though,  putting  aside  every  other 
consideration,  it  might  seem  adapted  to  repel  the  great  body 


Ix  ADDITIONAL  NOTES. 

of  readers  by  its  heaviness  and  wearisome  diffuseness,  yet 
the  third  edition  of  it  is  now  lying  before  me ;  and  it  has 
also  been  translated  into  French,  to  furnish  a  knowledge  of 
Christianity  to  a  people  who  are  in  general  so  mournfully 
ignorant  of  it.*  But  in  Germany  one  folly  has  of  late  been 
continually  thrusting  out  another ;  and  we  may  readily  be- 
lieve what  Strauss  affirms,  that  the  fashion  of  explaining 
miracles  as  natural  events,  which  was  so  long  prevalent,  has 
fallen  into  disrepute ;  and  that  he  undertook  his  work,  be- 
cause it  appeared  to  him  to  be  time  to  substitute  a  new  mode 
of  considering  the  Gospels,  in  place  of  the  obsolete  expo- 
sitions of  the  Supernaturalists  and  the  Naturalists. 

*  Since  the  present  volume  was  first  published,  an  English  transla- 
tion of  Strauss's  work  has  appeared,  made  from  the  fourth  German 
edition.  —  Note  to  2d  Edition,  1848. 


NOTE  D. 
(See  p.  175.) 

ON  THE  USE  OF  THE  WORDS  GEOS  AND  DEUS. 


In  rendering  the  words  6(os  and  deus  in  this  and  in  a 
former  work,*  I  have  repeatedly  wished  to  explain  my  views 
of  their  signification  and  use ;  and  on  the  last  occasion  which 
presented  itself  in  the  present  volume,  I  determined  to  make 
a  few  remarks  on  the  subject. 

In  order  to  a  right  apprehension  of  the  theology  either  of 
the  ancient  Heathens  or  of  the  early  Christians,  the  signifi- 
cation and  use  of  those  words  must  be  understood.  But  I 
am  not  aware  that  any  account  has  been  given  of  them 
which  will  satisfactorily  solve  one  very  common  phenome- 
non in  the  writings  of  the  ancient  heathen  philosophers. 
I  refer  to  the  fact,  that  throughout  their  writings  the  words 
are  used  in  the  plural  and  in  the  singular  number  indiscrimi- 
nately. The  solution  of  this  fact  involves  the  most  impor- 
tant explanation  required  of  their  signification  and  use.  The 
following  passage  from  Cicero  t  is  an  example  of  what  has 
been  mentioned  :  — 

"  Qui  deos  esse  concedant,  iis  fatendum  est,  eos  aliquid 
agere,  idque  prseclarum.  Nihil  est  autem  proeclarius  mundi 
administratione ;  deorum  igitur  consilio  administratur.  Quod 
si  aliter  est,  aliquid  profecto  sit  necesse  est  melius,  et  majore 
vi  prseditum,  quam  deos,  quale  id  cumque  est,  sive  inanima 
natura,  sive  necessitas  vi  magna  incitata,  haec  pulcherrima 

*  Statement  of  Reasons. 

t  De  Nature  Deorum,  Lib.  H   §  30. 


Ixu  ADDITIONAL  NOTES. 

opera  efficiens,  quae  videmus.  Non  est  igitur  natura  deorum 
prsepotens,  neque  excellens,  si  quidem  ea  subjecta  est  ei  vel 
necessitati,  vel  naturse,  qua  ccElum,  maria,  terrseque  regan- 
tur.  Nihil  autem  est  prsestantlus  deo ;  ab  eo  igitur  necesse 
est  mundum  regi ;  nuUi  igitur  est  naturse  obediens  aut  sub- 
jectus  deus ;  omnem  ergo  regit  ipse  naturam.  Etenim,  si 
concedimus  intelligentes  esse  deos,  concedimus  etiam  provi- 
dentes." 

This  passage  is  thus  translated  by  Francklin  :  — 

"  If  we  acknowledge  there  are  gods,  we  must  believe 
they  are  employed,  and  that  in  something  excellent;  nothing 
is  so  excellent  as  the  administration  of  the  universe;  it  is 
therefore  governed  by  the  wisdom  of  the  gods.  Otherwise 
we  must  imagine  there  is  some  cause  superior  to  the  deity, 
whether  it  be  a  nature  inanimate,  or  a  necessity  agitated  by 
a  mighty  force,  that  produces  those  beautiful  works  which 
we  behold.  The  nature  of  the  gods  would  then  be  neither 
supreme  nor  excellent,  if  you  subject  it  to  that  necessity,  or 
to  that  nature,  by  which  you  would  make  the  heaven,  the 
earth,  and  the  seas  to  be  governed.  But  there  is  nothing  su- 
perior to  the  deity ;  the  world  therefore  must  be  governed  by 
him  ;  consequently  the  deity  is  under  no  obedience  or  subjec- 
tion to  any  nature,  but  rules  all  nature  himself.  In  effect,  if 
we  allow  the  gods  have  understanding,  we  allow  also  their 
providence." 

It  is  evident  that  this  rendering  must  be  erroneous.  The 
sense  which  it  gives  is  incongruous.  There  is  an  entire 
confusion  of  ideas  in  thus  passing  forwards  and  backwards 
from  the  gods  to  the  Deity  and  from  the  Deity  to  the  gods, 
and  in  ascribing  to  both  the  same  characteristics.  But  the 
occurrence  of  passages  like  that  quoted  from  Cicero  is  com- 
mon in  the  ancient  heathen  philosophers.  That  we  may 
correctly  understand  them,  two  facts  are  to  be  attended  to. 

The  first  is,  that  the  signification  of  the  terms  6(qs  and 


USE  OF  THE  WORDS  GEOS  AND  DEUS.       Ixiii 

deus,  as  used  by  heathen  writers,  was  very  different  from 
that  of  our  word  "  God."  The  latter  is,  in  its  primary 
meaning,  a  proper  name,  confined  to  the  Supreme  Being. 
The  Greek  or  Latin  term  which  we  translate  "god"  was, 
on  the  other  hand,  a  common  name,  equally  applicable  to  a 
very  large  class  of  beings. 

The  second  consideration  is,  that  common  names  are 
used  in  the  singular  number,  not  merely  to  denote  an  indi- 
vidual belonging  to  the  class  which  they  designate,  but  the 
whole  class,  or  individuals  of  that  class  considered  in  refer- 
ence to  qualities  common  to  the  class.  In  such  cases  the 
singular  may  be  changed  into  the  plural  without  any  change 
of  meaning.     As,  for  example  ;  — 

"  God  made  the  country  and  man  made  the  town." 
That  is,  "  men  made  towns  "  or  built  cities. 

"  Is  it  for  thee  the  linnet  pours  his  throat  ?  " 
Is  it  for  thee  that  linnets  sing .? 

"  Loves  of  his  own  and  raptures  swell  bis  note  (his  notes)." 

"  Who  for  thy  table  feeds  the  wanton  fawn  (fawns), 
For  him  (them)  as  kindly  spreads  the  flowering  lawn  (lawns)." 

"  In  the  same  temple,  the  resounding  v/ood, 
All  vocal  beings  hymned  their  equal  God." 

In  temples  of  the  same  kind,  the  resounding  woods. 

"  Thus  beast  and  bird  (beasts  and  birds)  their  common  charge  attend ; 
The  mothers  nurse  them,  and  the  sires  defend." 

Here,  in  the  last  line,  the  same  sense  might  be  expressed  by 
the  use  of  the  nouns  in  the  singular  number :  — 
The  mother  nurses  and  the  sire  defends. 

"  The  lion  inhabits  (lions  inhabit)  both  Africa  and  Asia." 


Ixiv  ADDITIONAL  NOTES. 

I  give  a  few  short  examples,  such  as  may  be  easily  de- 
tached from  their  connection,  merely  for  the  sake  of  illus- 
tration. Instances  of  this  use  of  language  are  of  continual 
occurrence. 

It  is  by  this  use  of  common  names  in  the  singular  number 
with  a  plural  signification,  that  such  passages  as  that  quoted 
from  Cicero  are  to  be  explained.  Deus,  as  used  by  him  in 
the  singular,  does  not  mean  the  Deity  or  God.  It  denotes 
the  class  of  beings  called  "  gods."  Where  "  the  deity  "  is 
used  in  the  translation  I  have  quoted  from  Francklin,  we 
shall  give  the  true  meaning  of  the  original  by  substituting 
"  the  gods."  The  whole  passage  will  thus  become  coher- 
ent. 

The  most  striking  analogy  in  our  own  language  to  this 
use  of  the  names  6e6s  and  deus  in  the  ancient  languages  is 
found  in  the  use  of  the  name  "  man  "  ;  because  this  name, 
like  the  two  former,  denotes  a  class  of  intelligent  beings. 
The  word  "  man  "  is  very  commonly  used  in  the  singular 
number  with  a  plural  meaning.     As,  for  example  :  — 

"  A  part  how  small  of  the  terraqueous  globe 
Is  tenanted  by  man  !  " 

"  Consider  man  as  mortal,  all  is  dark." 

"  Man  shall  be  blest  as  far  as  man  permits." 
The  singular  and  plural  consequently  may  be  used  inter- 
changeably, as  in  the  following  passage :  — 

"  To  faith  and  virtue  why  so  backward  man  ? 

From  hence  :  —  The  present  strongly  strikes  us  all ; 

The  future  faintly.     Can  we,  then,  be  men  ? 

If  men,  Lorenzo,  the  reverse  is  right. 

Reason  is  man's  peculiar,  sense  the  brute's. 

The  present  is  the  scanty  realm  of  sense  ; 

The  future,  reason's  empire  unconfined." 

As  in  our  language,  the   word  "  man "   in  the  singular 


USE  OF  THE  WORDS  eEOS  AND  DEUS.         Ixv 

number  is  used  to  denote  men  generally,  so  in  the  Greek 
and  Latin  languages,  tlie  words  6fbs  and  deus  are  used  in 
the  singular  with  a  like  plural  signification,  to  denote  the 
gods  generally,  considered  as  a  class  of  intelligent  beings 
supei'ior  to  man.* 

As  this  use  of  deos  and  deus  in  the  singular  with  a  plural 
signification  has  not  been  commonly  remarked,  it  may  be 
worth  while  to  illustrate  it  by  a  few  more  examples.  In  the 
conclusion  of  the  first  Book  of  Cicero's  work  "  On  the  Na- 
ture of  the  Gods,"  Cotta  thus  reasons  against  the  doctrines 
of  Epicurus  :  — 

"  Disinterested  love  and  friendship  are  qualities  of  men. 
How  much  more,  then,  are  they  qualities  of  the  gods  {de- 
orum) !  They,  though  in  want  of  nothing,  love  each  other, 
and  consult  for  the  good  of  men.     If  it  be  not  so,  why  do 

we  venerate,  why  do  we  pray  to  the  gods  {deos)  ? 

Epicurus  takes  away  the  gods  {deos)  in  reality,  and  leaves 
them  in  words.  If  the  gods  are  truly  such  that  they  have 
no  favor  and  no  love  for  men,  let  them  go.  For  why  should 
I  say,  '  May  the  gods  be  propitious  ' .?  {Si  maxime  talis  est 
deus,  ut  nulla  gratia,  nulla  hominum  caritate  teneatur,  va- 
hat.     Quid  enim  dicam,  Propitius  sitiy  t 

To  one  of  the  statements  of  Balbus  in  the  same  work 
Cotta  thus  objects  :  — 

*  There  is  a  peculiarity  of  our  language,  in  the  use  of  the  word 
"man,"  which  deserves  notice.  In  the  Greek,  in  the  English,  and 
in  other  modern  languages,  which  have  the  definite  article,  it  is  a 
general  rule,  that  the  article  should  be  prefixed  to  common  names, 
when  used  in  the  singular  to  denote  a  class  of  beings ;  but  our  word 
"  man,"  when  thus  used,  always  rejects  it,  —  except  some  discriminat- 
ing epithet  be  connected  with  it  which  limits  its  application  to  a  par- 
ticular class  of  men.  In  the  latter  case,  it  falls  under  the  general 
rule  ;  as  we  may  say,  "  the  virtuous  man,"  meaning  "  virtuous  men." 

t  Lib.  I.  §  44. 

VOL.  in.  .51 


Ixvi  ADDITIONAL  NOTES. 

"  '  The  gods  (rfw),'  he  says,  '  do  not  take  notice  of  all 
offences  any  more  than  kings.'  What  resemblance  is  there 
between  the  two  cases  ?  For  if  kings  knowingly  pass  over 
crimes,  it  is  a  great  fault.  But  the  gods  have  not  the  ex- 
cuse of  iofnorance.  {At  deo  ne  excusalio  quidem  est  insci- 
enticB.)  You  give  a  notable  defence  of  them,  when  you 
say,  that  such  is  the  power  of  the  gods  {Quern  —  i.  e.  quem 
deum  —  V OS  pr cedar e  defenditis,  cum  dicitis  earn  esse  vim 
deorum),  that  if  any  one  should  escape  by  death  the  punish- 
ment of  a  crime,  yet  it  would  be  required  of  his  children, 
his  grandchildren,  his  posterity.  O  wonderful  equity  of  the 
gods  {deorum)  !  "  * 

Cicero  says,  in  his  work  "  On  Laws  "  :  —  t 

"  The  first  ground  of  fellowship  between  man  and  the 
gods  is  reason  {Prima  homini  cum  deo  rationis  societas), 
which  belongs  both  to  man  and  the  gods  {est  in  homine  et 
in  deo).  But  as  reason  is  common  to  both,  so  also  is  right 
reason.  And  as  this  is  a  law,  we  are  to  be  regarded  as 
further  associated  with  the  gods  by  subjection  to  a  law  {lege 
quoque  consociali  cum  diis  pufandi  swmts).'''' 

In  this  example,  we  find  the  words  homo  and  deus  con- 
nected together,  both  with  the  same  plural  sense,  as  denoting 
the  individuals  of  a  class. 

I  had  thought  of  adding  at  length  some  other  examples, 
as  one  from  the  Memorabilia  of  Socrates,  |  where  Socrates 
is  urging  on  Aristodemus  the  worship  of  the  gods,  and 
maintaining  their  existence  and  providence,  and  where,  after 
using  the  name  6eol  throughout  the  preceding  part  of  the 
discourse  in  the  plural,  he  passes  to  the  use  of  6f6s  in  the 
singular,  and  speaks  of  t6v  tov  Beov  6<pda\iJ.6v  and  rfjv  rov  6fov 
cj)p6vT](nv,  but  returns  immediately  to  the  plural  form  ;  —  and 

*  Lib  III.  §§  :^7,  38.      t  De  Legibus,  Lib.  I.  §  7.      t  Lib.  I.  c.  4. 


USE  OF  THE  WORDS  GEOS  AND  DEUS.      Ixvii 

another  from  the  first  sentences  of  Plutarch's  treatise  "  Of 
Isis  and  Osiris,"  which  have  been  remarked  for  the  indis- 
criminate use  of  dfos  in  the  singular  and  the  plural.  But 
further  examples  are  not  necessary  for  the  illustration  of  the 
use  which  has  been  pointed  out  of  6e6s  and  deus  in  the  sin- 
gular number;  and  are  not  required  in  proof  of  it,  since 
any  one  whose  attention  is  directed  to  the  subject  may  find 
such  examples  in  abundance. 

From  overlooking  this  use  of  those  words,  they  have, 
when  occurring  in  the  singular  number  in  ancient  heathen 
writers,  been  often  misunderstood  as  intended  to  denote  the 
Supreme  Being.  "  Nothing  is  more  frequent  with  pagan 
writers,"  says  Cudworth,  "  than  to  speak  of  God  singularly, 
they  signifying  thereby  the  one  Supreme  Deity."* — "The 
Pagans  did  not  only  signify  the  Supreme  God  by  these  prop- 
er names  [Zeuy,  Jupiter,  &c.],  but  also  frequently  by  the 
appellatives  themselves,  when  used,  not  for  a  god  in  general, 
but  for  the  God,  or  God  kut  e^oxfjv,  and  by  way  of  eminen- 
cy.  And  thus  6  deos  and  6f6s  are  often  taken  by  the  Greeks, 
not  for  deSiv  Tis,  a  god  or  one  of  the  gods,  but  for  God  or  the 
Supreme  Deity.''''  t  It  appears,  that  Cudworth  regarded  dtos, 
when  used  in  the  singular  number,  as  having  no  other  pow- 
er than  to  denote  an  individual,  either  a  god  or  God ;  and 
concluded,  therefore,  that,  when  it  did  not  refer  to  some 
heathen  god,  it  must  denote  the  Supreme  Being.  But,  so 
far  as  a  belief  in  a  plurality  of  gods  exists,  5e6?  must  be  a 
common  name.  Like  other  common  names,  therefore,  it 
can  refer  to  any  one  particular  being,  only  through  some 
circumstance  accompanying  its  use  which  determines  its  ref- 
erence to  that  being.     It  is  true  that  those  heathen  philoso- 

*  Intellectual  System,  Ch.  IV.  §  27.  p.  453. 
t   Ibid.  §  14.  p.  260. 


Ixviii  ADDITIONAL  NOTES. 

phers  before  Christianity,  who  had  a  conception  of  one 
Supreme  Power,  answering  more  or  less  to  our  conception 
of  God,  applied  to  that  Power  the  terms  ^e6?  and  deus ;  but 
not  nakedly  and  unexplained.  They  did  so  by  means  of 
some  discriminating  epithet,  as  when  Cicero  says,  that  man 
was  produced  a  summo  deo,  "  by  the  Supreme  God  "  ;  or  by 
using  the  terms  in  such  a  connection  as  left  no  uncertainty 
about  their  reference,  as  when  Plato,  in  his  Timseus,  gives 
to  the  Creator  of  All  Things,  who  is  evidently  the  subject 
of  his  discourse,  the  appellation  of  6  6e6s ;  and  as  Aristotle, 
after  describing  the  Prime  Mover  of  the  Universe,  continues 
to  speak  of  him  under  the  same  appellation.*  There  are, 
perhaps,  other  cases  in  which  the  circumstance  determining 
the  reference  is  less  obvious;  but  some  circumstance  there 
must  have  been ;  for  ^eos  and  deus,  being  common  names, 
could  denote  a  particular  being  only  when  that  being  was  in 
some  way  brought  before  the  mind  of  the  reader. 

But  a  grosser  error  than  that  on  wnich  I  have  just  re- 
marked has  been  the  translating  of  the  words  deo\  and  dii, 
in  the  plural,  by  the  proper  name  "  God  "  or  "  the  Deity." 
It  is  an  error  so  obvious  and  so  indefensible,  that  it  is  un- 
necessary to  remark  upon  it.  Yet  it  has  been  a  common 
one.  It  occurs,  for  instance,  in  Francklin's  Translation 
(which  I  have  quoted)  of  Cicero's  work  "On  the  Nature 
of  the  Gods,"  and  even  Cudworth  himself  has  fallen  into  it. 
"  It  is  no  unusual  thing,"  says  Leland,  "  for  Christian 
writers,  in  their  quotations  from  heathen  authors,  to  produce 
passages  relating  to  the  gods,  as  a  proof  that  the  Heathens 
acknowledged  the  government  and  attributes  of  the  Deity  in 
the  Christian  sense."  t 


*  Metaphysic.  Lib.  XIV.  c.  7. 

t  Leland's  Advantage  and  Necessity  of  the  Christian  Revelation, 
Part  I.  Ch.  14.  note  c.  See  also  note  q.  In  these  notes  Leland  gives 
examples  of  writers  who  have  committed  this  error. 


USE  OF  THE  WORDS  GEOS  AND  DEUS.       Ixix 

Besides  the  facts  which  have  been  mentioned  respecting 
the  signification  of  Bfos  and  deus  as  used  by  ancient  heathen 
writers,  another  is  to  be  attended  to.      Those  words    had 
a  very  wide  application.     When  we  think  of  the  heathen 
gods,  our  first  conception  is  of  a  class  of  beings  resembling 
men,  though  considered  as  far  superior,  all  of  whom  were 
respectively  entitled  to  the  common  appellation  "  god."   But 
this  appellation  was  extended  much  farther,  to  beings  not 
having  a  personal  existence,  to  irrational  and    inanimate 
things ;  to  virtues  and  vices  ;  to  events,  as  to  Victory  ;  and 
to   passions,  affections,   powers,  and   other  attributes.     To 
take  an  enumeration  given  by  Le  Clerc,  "The  Romans  had 
temples  of  Intellect,  Virtue,  Honor,  Piety,  Fidelity,  Hope, 
Modesty,  Concord,  Peace,  Quiet,  Safety,  Felicity,  and  Lib- 
erty." *     "  Let  there  be  shrines,"  says  Cicero  in  his  imagi- 
nary system  of  laws,  "  in  honor  of  those  qualities  by  which 
man  ascends  to  heaven,  — Intellect,  Virtue,  Piety, Fidelity."! 
"  They  all  have  temples  dedicated  to  them  at  Rome  ;  and  it  is 
well  that  they  should  be  consecrated,  and  that  statues  should 
be  erected  to  them,  that  those  who  possess  them,  as  all  the 
good  do  possess  them,  should  believe  that  gods  themselves 
dwell  in  their  souls."  |     Le  Clerc,  after  given  the  enumera- 
tion which  I  have  quoted  from  him,  says  :  "  It  does  not  seem 
probable  to  me  that  the  Romans  believed  in  all  these  gods 
with  a  clear  assent  of  mind."     They  did  not,  I  conceive, 
believe  in  them  as  gods  having  a  personal  existence,  from 
whom  favors  might  be  obtained  by  supplication  ;  they  regard- 
ed them  as  qualities  having  something  divine  in  their  nature, 
to  which  public   honors  should  be  paid   with  appropriate 
rites.  ^ 

*  Ars  Critica,  P.  II.  S.  1.  c.  8.  §  8. 
t  De  Legibus,  Lib.  II.  §  8.  t  Ibid.  §  11. 

§  Thus,  during  tiie  atheistical  madness  of  the  French  Revolution, 
it  was  proposed  to  establish  the  worship  of  Reason,  and  the  five  inter- 


Ixx  ADDITIONAL  NOTES. 

In  regard  to  irrational  and  inanimate  things  there  is  a 
liability  to  mistake.  We  must  not  reckon  among  them  the 
sun,  the  moon,  or  the  stars,  or  other  things  which  we  regard 
as  inanimate,  but  which  the  ancients  believed  to  be  vehicles 
of  personal  divinities,  to  whom,  and  not  to  the  inanimate 
bodies,  they  rendered  worship.  But  there  is  no  question 
that  the  name  of  "  god "  was  given  to  beings  regarded  as 
irrational  and  inanimate.  Of  this  we  have  a  remarkable 
proof  in  the  deification  by  the  Egyptians  of  whole  classes  of 
animals,  as  the  ibis,  the  ichneumon,  and  the  crocodile,  and 
even  of  vegetables.  "The  Egyptians,"  says  the  elder 
Pliny,  "  swear  by  garlic  and  onions,  as  gods  ;  "  *  and  Juve- 
nal t  and  Prudentius|  refer  to  the  same  superstition.  No 
one  can  imagine  that  the  Egyptians  worshipped  these  ani- 
mals and  vegetables  as  personal  divinities ;  but  they  con- 
ceived that  there  was  some  divine  power  in  them,  or  that 
they  wei-e  something  sacred.  The  point  to  be  regarded  is, 
that  the  common  name  "  god  "  was  so  widely  extended  as 
to  be  applied  to  them.  There  were  other  strange  applica- 
tions of  it.  The  example  is  ludicrous ;  but  we  have  the  au- 
thority of  Aristotle  for  saying  that  it  was  given  to  a  sneeze. 
He  proposes  the  problem  :  "  Why  do  we  consider  a  sneeze 
to  be  ^eo?.?"§  —  certainly  not  meaning  by  that  term  "a 
god,"  but  "something  divine."  And  he  seriously  discusses 
the  question,  why  this  name  was  not  given  to  some  other  ac- 

calary  days  at  the  end  of  the  year  were  consecrated  as  festivals  of 
Genius,  of  Labor,  of 'Actions,  of  Rewards,  and  of  Opinion. 

*  Hist.  Nat.  Lib.  XIX.  §  32.  t  Sat.  XV.  vv.  9-11; 

t  De  Coronis,  Hymnus  X.  vv.  259,  260.  Contra  Symmachi  Orat. 
Lib.  II.  vv.  865-867. 

^  Aia  Tt  Tov  Trrapiibv  Behv  f}yov}ie6a  elvai ;  "  Is  it,"  says  Aristotle, 
"  because  it  proceeds  from  the  most  divine  part  of  us,  the  head,  where 
are  the  reasonimr  powers?  Or  because  the  others  [other  affections  of 
the  body  before  mentioned  by  him]  are  the  consequence  of  disease, 
but  this  is  not  ?  "     Problemat.  Sect.  33.  §  7. 


USE  OF  THE  WORDS  GEOS  AND  DEU8.       Ixxi 

cidents  of  the  body,  which  he  regards  as  analogous,  but 
which  at  the  pi'esent  day  we  are  not  accustomed  to  name.* 
Thus  it  appears,  that  the  most  generic  meaning  of  6e6i 
and  deus  was  merely  "  something  divine,"  that  term  being 
taken  in  a  very  loose  sense,  admitting  of  no  precise  defini- 
tion. There  was  only  a  popular  and  vague  conception  of 
the  quality  meant  to  be  denoted  by  them  in  their  most  ex- 
tensive application.  It  is  evident,  therefore,  that  there  are 
cases  of  their  occurrence  in  the  singular  number,  in  which 
we  should  render  either  of  them  erroneously  by  giving  as 
an  equivalent  the  term  "  god."  We  should  use  the  words 
"  something  divine  "  or  "  divinity  "  or  "  divine  power,"  or 
some  like  expression.  Thus  when  Qeos  or  deus  is  used  in 
the  singular  by  ancient  heathen  writers,  it  may  be  employed, 
not  to  denote  any  personal  being  distinctly  conceived  of, 
but  that  divine  power,  "  quicquid  est  hoc^^''  t  which  controls 
the  universe.^ 

*  Ibid.  §  9. 

t  This  expression  is  from  Pacuvius,  as  quoted  b}'  Cicero  in  iiis  first 
Book  de  Divinatione  (§  57).  The  verses  of  Pacuvius  may  serve  fur- 
ther to  illustrate  the  conception  spoken  of  above. 

"Quicquid  est  hoc,  omnia  animat,  format,  alit,  auget,  creat, 
Sepelit,  recipitque  in  sese  omnia;  oniniumque  idem  est  pater; 
Indidemque  eademque  oriuntur,  de  integro,  atque  eodem  occidunt." 
I  There  was  anciently  a  popular  use  of  the  word  deus  in  the  sinoru- 
lar  number,  which  several  of  the  Latin  fathers  have  appealed  to,  as 
showing  a  natural  consciousness  in  men  of  the  one  God.     The  object 
of  Tertullian,  in  his  Treatise  "  On  the  Testimony  of  the  Soul,"  is  to 
prove,  that  the  soul,  even  while  yet  unchristianized,  instinctively  bears 
testimony  to  the  truths  of  Christianity  ;  and  he  thus  (cap.  2)  apostro- 
phizes it,  considered  as  the  soul  of  a  Heathen  :  — "  We  give  offence," 
he  says,  "  by  preaching  the  only  God,  the  author  and  ruler  of  all 
things,  under  that  only   name.     Give  your  testimony,  if  you  know 
this  to  be  so.     For  we  hear  you  openly  and  with  all  liberty,  which  is 
not  permitted  us,  pronounce  at  home  and  abroad, '  Qvod  deusdederit,' 
and  '  Quod  deus  volueril.'"'     This  use  of  deus  in  tiie  singular  TertuI- 


Ixxii  ADDITIONAL    NOTES. 

But  we  must  distinguish  between  those  heathen  writers 
who  preceded,  and  those  who  followed,  the  introduction  of 

lian  considers  as  a  recognition  of  the  One  God.  He  adds  :  —  "  Nor  are 
you  ignorant  of  what  we  preach  concerning  the  nature  of  God.  You 
say, '  Deus  bonus,'  '  Dcus  henefacit,'  and  add,'  but  man  is  bad  (sed  ho- 
vio  est  malus).'  " 

It  is  not  to  be  supposed,  that  TertulUan,  and  the  other  fathers  who 
employed  this  argument,  believed  that  the  commonalty  among  the 
Heathen,  when  they  used  these  expressions,  had  in  their  thouglits  a 
distinct  conception  of  that  God,  whom  they  acknowledged  in  none  of 
their  rites  of  worship,  and  "  wliom  it  was  a  thing  forbidden  to  point 
out  to  the  vulgar."  *  The  fathers,  I  conceive,  so  far  as  they  under- 
stood themselves,  regarded  those  expressions  as  an  instinctive  recog- 
nition, not  well  comprehended  by  those  who  uttered  them,  of  a  truth 
originally  stamped  upon  the  soul :  — "  Adeo  ipsa  Veritas,"  says  Lac- 
'tantius,  "  cogente  natura,  etiam  ab  invitis  pectoribus  erumpit." 

But  the  argument,  like  so  many  others  in  ancient  writers,  is  a  mere 
rhetorical  sophism.  In  the  words  "  Quod  dens  dederit,"  as  in  all  the 
other  expressions  alleged,  the  name  dcus  must  be  taken  in  one  of  the 
following  senses  :  —  "  Quod  deus  dederit"  may  mean,  "  Which  may  a 
god  grant  "  ;  or  "  Which  may  the  god  grant,"  —  meaning  some  par- 
ticular god  in  the  mind  of  the  speaker;  or  "  Which  may  the  gods 
grant "  ;  or  "  Which  may  divine  power  grant." 

In  regard  to  the  meaning, "  Which  may  the  gods  grant,"  we  see  in 
the  words  "  Deus  bonus,  sed  homo  est  mains,"  that  homo  is  to  be  un- 
derstood in  a  plural  signification,  and  in  tlie  same  manner  we  may 
understand  deus. 

But  in  such  ejaculations  as  "  Quod  deus  dederit,"  we  may  conjec- 
ture, that,  so  far  as  any  meaning  was  defined  in  the  mind  of  him  who 
uttered  them,  the  reference  was  to  divine  power  considered  in  the  ab- 
stract, and  not  as  existing  in  any  particular  being  or  beings.  If  this 
explanation  be  correct,  the  argument  of  the  fathers  was  not  so  obvious 
a  sophism  as  it  must  otherwise  appear.  It  might  be  stated  thus  :  In 
this  recognition  of  a  Divine  Power,  by  which  events  are  ordered,  and 
which  is  not  referred  by  you  to  any  one  of  the  gods  whom  you  ordi-. 
narily  worship,  there  is  evidence  of  that  conception  of  the  Divinity 
which  belongs  to  the  nature  of  the  soul. 

Cudworth  (Ch.  IV.  §  27.  p.  453)  and  Le  Clerc  (Ars  Critica,  P.  II. 

*  See  before,  p.  25. 


USE  OF  THE  WORDS  eE02  AND  DEUS.     Ixxiii 

Christianity.     The  use  of  deos  and  deus  as  common  names 
was  the  necessary  result  of  the  general  prevalence  of  poly- 


S,  I.  c.  2.  §  10)  both  remark  on  this  argument  of  the  fathers.  Cud- 
worth,  from  the  expressions  cited,  strangely  concludes  that  it  was 
"  very  familiar  with  the  vulgar  Pagans  in  their  ordinary  discourse  to 
speak  of  God  singularly,  signifying  thereby  the  one  Supreme  Deity." 
Le  Clerc,  on  the  contrary,  considers  deus,  when  used  in  the  ejacula- 
tions mentioned,  as  referring  to  "  a  god,  whoever  he  might  be,  who 
was  regarded  as  presiding  over  the  affair  in  hand  "  ;  and  consequent- 
ly views  the  argument  as  futile. 

But  there  is  still  another  fact  respecting  this  subject  which  deserves 
attention.  We  learn  from  Tertulhan  (as  before  quoted,  and  likewise 
Apologet.  cap.  17),  from  Minutius  Felix  (c.  18),  from  Cyprian  (De 
Idolorum  Vanitate,  Opp.  p.  227.  Ed.  Baluz.),  from  Arnobius  (Lib.  II. 
c.  2),  and  from  Lactantius  (Div.  Institut.  Lib.  II.  c.  1),  that  the  use 
of  such  expressions  as  Tertullian  remarks,  in  which  deus  occurs  in 
the  singular  number,  was  common  in  their  time  among  Heathens 
who  spoke  the  Latin  language.  Thus  Minutius  Felix  says  :  — "  Au- 
dio vulgus,  cum  ad  coelum  manus  tendunt,  nihil  aliud  quam  deum 
dicunt,  et  deus  magnus  est,  et  deus  verus  est,  et  si  deus  dcderit.  Vulgi 
iste  naturalis  sermo  est,  an  Christian!  confitentis  oratio.'  "  According 
to  Lactantius,  it  was  common  to  ask  charity,  not  in  the  name  of  the 
gods,  but  of  God  :  — "Si  quis,  ad  extremam  mendicandi  necessitatera 
deductus,  victum  precibus  exposcit,  Deum  solum  obtestatur,  et  per 
ejus  divinum  atque  unicura  nomen  hominum  sibi  misericordiam  quae- 
rit."  It  appears,  then,  that  these  modes  of  expression,  which  are  re- 
markable from  the  occurrence  of  deus  in  the  singular,  were  famil- 
iarly used  by  Heathens  from  the  end  of  the  second  century,  if  not 
earlier. 

But,  going  back  two  or  three  centuries  before  Christianity,  we  find, 
on  the  other  hand,  evidence  that  such  expressions  were  not  ordinarily 
used, —  that  they  did  not  belong  to  the  language  of  the  generality. 
Plautus  and  Terence,  in  their  Comedies,  give  us  the  language  of  com- 
mon life ;  and  such  expressions  do  not  occur  in  their  writings.  In 
no  case  corresponding  to  those  mentioned  by  the  Latin  fathers  is  the 
word  deus  used  by  them  in  the  singular.  On  the  contrary,  its  use  in 
the  plural  is  of  constant  occurrence,  in  a  great  variety  of  forms  of 
speech,  such  as  the   following:  —  "ha  me  di  ament,"  " Di  te  ser- 

VOL.   III.  52 


Ixxiv  ADDITIONAL   NOTES. 

theism.  But  when  the  unity  of  God,  and  the  infinite  dis- 
tinction between  him  and  all  other  beings,  are  fully  recog- 
nized, the  terms  denoting  the  possession  of  divine  attributes 
become  confined,  in  their  strict  and  literal  application,  to  the 
only  being  by  whom  such  attributes  are  possessed.  By  the 
writers  of  the  New  Testament  the  appellation  Qeos,  either  with 
or  without  the  article,  is  constantly  used  as  a  proper  name, 
in  the  same  manner  as  the  word  "  God  "  is  used  at  the  pres- 
ent day.  We  are  familiar  with  the  fact,  and  it  may  not, 
without  some  consideration,  make  an  impression  on  our 
minds.  But  considering  the  universal  use  of  6e6s  as  a  com- 
mon name  by  the  whole  heathen  world  before  their  time, 
and  by  Christians,  as  we  shall  see,  subsequent  to  their  time, 
it  is  a  fact,  I  conceive,  which  admits  of  no  explanation,  ex- 
cept that  which  is  found  in  the  divine  origin  of  the  Jewish 
and  Christian  dispensations. 

The  rapid  and  wide  influence  of  Christianity,  even  on 
those  by  whom  it  was  rejected,  produced  a  tendency  to  a 
similar  use  of  it  in  their  writings.  The  light  of  our  religion 
was  early  reflected  from  the  heathen  philosophy  which  stood 
opposed  to  it.  But  the  heathen  writers  after  the  time  of 
Christ,  who  used  6  Beos  or  6{6s  or  deus  to  designate  the 
Supreme  Divinity,  or  the  Supreme  Power  in  Nature,  at  the 
same  time  believed  in  subordinate  gods;  and  therefore  still 
continued  to  employ  the  words  as  common  names.  The  use 
of  them  was  vacillating ;  men's  notions  were  unsettled  ;  and 
their  meaning  in'  particular  passages  is  often  to  be  deter- 

vent,"  ^'- Di  te  perdant,"  ^^  Per  omnes  deos  adjuro,"  ^^  Per  te  obsecro 
deos  immortales,"  "  Dl  sciunt,"  "  Di  !  quaso  subvenite,"  "  Id  testor 
deos,"  "  Dt !  obsecro  vos,"  "  Di  prohibeant,"  and  many  more. 

How  are  these  facts  to  be  explained  ?  The  conceptions  and  lan- 
guage of  Christians  affected  the  writings  of  the  heathen  philosopiiers, 
their  contemporaries.  Must  we  not  conclude  that  they  affected  in 
like  manner  the  forms  of  speech  used  b}'  the  heathen  commonalty  r 


USE  OF  THE  WORDS  eE02  AND  DEUS.       Ixxv 

mined  only  by  the  known  opinions  of  the  writer,  and  by  the 
attributes  or  acts  which  he  ascribes  to  the  being  of  whom  he 
speaks. 

The  early  fathers  familiarly  used  Qeos  and  Deus  as  proper 
names.  But  they  likewise  fell  back  on  the  use  of  those 
words  as  common  names.  The  latter  use  of  them,  however, 
is  not  to  be  confounded  with  a  metaphorical  use  of  the  name 
of  God,  not  infrequent  in  some  authors  both  ancient  and 
modern,  according  to  which  the  name  "  god  "  is  applied  to 
inferior  beings,  as  to  men,  for  example,  considered  as  pos- 
sessing attributes  like  those  of  God.  This  metaphorical  use 
of  the  term  is  common  in  the  writings  of  Clement  of  Alex- 
andria,* and  not  less  so  in  the  "  Night  Thoughts  "  of  Young. 
But  when  the  term  is  in  use  as  a  common  name,  it  is  not 
always  easy  to  distinguish  between  the  metaphorical  and  the 
generic  use  of  it,  and  the  writer  himself  may  not  well  dis- 
criminate between  them.  We  can  hardly  doubt,  however, 
that  Clement  uses  the  term  as  a  common  name,  when  he 
speaks  of  "  the  whole  army  of  angels  and  gods  being  sub- 
ject to  the  Son  of  God."t 

Of  the  use  of  the  terms  6ebs  and  deus  as  common  names 
by  the  earlier  fathers  the  most  remarkable  example  is  found 
in  the  application  of  them  to  the  Logos,  considered  as  a 
real  person,  or,  in  other  words,  to  the  Son  or  Christ.  Of 
this  some  passages  which  I  have  formerly  quoted  in  relation 
to  another  subject  afford  illustration.  \  An  indefinite  number 
of  others  might  be  adduced.  It  is  a  main  purpose  of  Justin 
Martyr,  in  his  "  Dialogue  with  Trypho,"  to  prove  that  there 
is  another  god,  the  Logos,  besides  the  Supreme  Being.  He 
says  to  Trypho  and  his  companions,  —  "I  will  endeavour  to 
convince  you,  who  understand  the  Scriptures  [the  Old  Tes- 

*  See  Statement  of  Reasons,  pp.  67,  G8. 

t  Stromal.  VII,  §  2.  p.  831.  \  See  Vol.  II.  p.  250,  seqq. 


Ixxvi  ADDITIONAL  NOTES. 

tament],  that,  under  the  Maker  of  All,*  there  is  another, 
who  is,  and  is  called,  god  and  lord,  and  who  is  also  called 
an  angel,  because  he  is  the  minister  of  the  Maker  of  All, 
above  whom  there  is  no  other  god,  in  whatever  communica- 
tions it  is  his  will  to  make  to  men."  t  TertuUian,  in  main- 
taining the  personal  divinity  of  the  Logos,  says  :  —  "  We  be- 
lieve that  there  is  one  only  God ;  but  we  believe  also,  that  of 
this  only  God  there  is  a  Son,  his  Logos,"  and  that  he  "  was 
sent  by  his  Father  into  a  virgin,  and  born  from  her  a  man 
and  a  god."  |  This  is  one  of  the  many  passages  which 
show  what  confusion,  and  even  what  apparent  contradiction 
of  terms,  were  produced  by  using  the  word  "  god  "  both  as 
a  proper  and  a  common  name.  Origen,  borrowing  the  re- 
mark from  Philo,§  contends,  that  while  the  Only  True  God, 
he  who  is  God  by  himself  [avroOeos  6  Qeos)  is  alone  to  be 
called  6  Qeos  {The  Divine  Being),  there  are  many,  and,  in 
the  first  place,  the  Logos,  to  whom  the  name  6e6s  (a  divine 
being)  without  the  article  may  be  given  ;  they  being  made 
gods,  that  is,  divine  beings,  by  a  participation  of  the  divini- 
ty of  God.  II  We  find  this  notion  of  other  beings  becoming 
"gods"  {dii)  by  a  participation  of  divinity,  even  so  late  as 
the  sixth  century,  in  Boethius.  "  Beatitude,"  he  says,  "  is 
divinity."  "  Every  being,  therefore,  possessing  beatitude  is 
a  god  ( Omnis  igititr  beatus,  deus).  By  nature  there  is,  in- 
deed, but  one  God,  but  nothing  prevents  that  there  should 
be  very  many  by  participation."  ^     Perhaps,  however,  the 

*  — VTTO  TOP  TToirjTTjv  ru>v  oKciv.  The  true  reading  is  vtto,  not  virep 
(which  is  a  conjecture  of  R.  Stephens).  See  Thirlby's  note,  and  the 
Benedictine  (Maran's)  edition,  p.  151. 

t  Pag.  249.  Ed.  Thiribii. 

X  Advers.  Praxeam,  c.  2.  p.  501.     See  before,  p.  175,  note. 

§   Philo,  De  Somniis,  Lib.  I.  Opp.  I.  655. 

\\  Comment,  in  Joan.  T.  IL     Opp.  IV.  51,  52. 

11  De  Consolatione,  Lib.  IlL  Prosa  10. 


USE  OF  THE  WORDS  eEOS  AND  DEUS.     Ixxvii 

word  is  here  used  metaphorically  rather  than  as  a  common 
name. 

There  is  no  doubt  that  the  earUer  fathers  gave  the  name 
"  o-od  "  to  the  Logos  as  a  common  name,  using  it  in  a  sense 
altogether  difTerent  from  -that  in  which  they  regarded  it  as 
the  appropriate  name  of  the  Supreme  Being.  But  they  also 
applied  it  to  the  Logos  in  the  latter  sense  by  a  common 
metonymy;  the  Logos  being  considered  as  the  representa- 
tive and  the  instrument  of  God,  as  an  hypostatized  attribute 
of  God,  and  as  a  being  who  was  one  with  God  in  purpose 
and  will.  This  figurative  use  of  the  word  was  blended  with 
its  use  as  a  common  name,  and  seemed  to  justify  it. 

Of  the  confusion  of  thought  and  indistinctness  of  mean- 
ing produced  by  the  use  of  debs  and  deus  sometimes  as 
proper  and  sometimes  as  common  names  we  have  an  exam- 
ple in  the  charge  brought  by  the  catholic  Christians  against 
the  Gnostics,  that  the  Gnostics  taught  the  existence  of  two 
Gods,  the  Supreme  Being  and  the  Creator.  It  was  as  a 
common  name  that  the  Gnostics  applied  the  term  "  god  " 
to  the  Creator,  and  not  in  the  sense  in  which  both  they  and 
the  catholic  Christians  used  it  as  the  proper  name  of  God. 
They  might  have  retorted  on  the  catholic  Christians,  that  the 
latter,  in  giving  the  name  "  god  "  to  the  Logos,  taught  the 
existence  of  two  Gods,  or  even,  as  appears  from  what  pre- 
cedes, that  they  taught  the  existence  of  many  Gods. 

Other  remarks  might  be  added,  but  they  would  tend, 
perhaps,  to  divert  attention  from  the  main  facts  that  have 
been  stated ;  and,  supposing  those  facts  to  be  true,  they  are 
such  as  every  intelligent  scholar  may  make  for  himself. 


CORRECTIONS  AND  REMARKS. 


Vol.  I.  p.  118.  I  have  thus  rendered  a  passage  from 
Strauss  :  —  "  Certainly  it  would  be  of  decisive  weight  to 
establish  the  credibility  of  the  Bible-history,  were  it  proved 
.that  it  was  written  by  eyewitnesses,  or  even  hy  contempo- 
raries in  the  neighbourhood  of  the  events^ 

I  have  since  observed,  that  I  should  have  rendered  the 
last  clause  thus  :  —  "  or  even  hy  persons  nearly  contempo- 
rary with  the  events.''''  The  words  of  the  original  are  :  — 
"  oder  doch  [von]  nahen  Zeitgenossen  der  Begebenheiten  " ; 
that  is,  literally,  or  hy  near  contemporaries  of  the  events. 

This  somewhat  ambiguous  expression  I  now  perceive  is 
explained  by  the  commencement  of  the  next  paragraph,  in 
which  it  is  asserted,  that  "  the  pretence,  that  the  Biblical 
writers  were  eyewitnesses  of  the  events  related  by  them,  or 
lived  near  the  time  of  their  occurrence,  is  a  mere  assump- 
tion." "  Doch  diese  angebliche  Augenzeugenschaft  oder 
Zeitnahe  der  biblischen  Schriftsteller  auf  die  von  ihnen 
erzahlten  Begebenheiten  ist  vorerst  gleichfalls  nur  Vorur- 
theil." 

In  recurring  to  the  sentence  I  quoted,  for  the  purpose  of 
translating  it,  I  had  forgotten  the  explanation  of  it  given  by 
Strauss ;  and  looking  only  at  the  sentence  itself,  I  could  not, 
as  may  readily  be  supposed,  believe  that  any  writer  meant 
to  express  by  it  what  it  appears  that  Strauss  really  intended. 


CORRECTIONS  AND  REMARKS.  Ixxix 

According  to  him,  when  properly  understood,  it  is  alone 
sufficient  to  authenticate  a  history,  that  it  was  written,  not 
by  "  a  contemporary  in  the  neighbourhood  of  the  events," 
—  that  was  an  error  of  my  own, — ^but  by  "  a  person  nearly 
contemporary  with  the  events."  This  is  a  position  on 
which  it  is  embarrassing  to  remark ;  since  to  offer  any 
comment  on  it  may  be  mistaken  as  implying  disrespect  for 
the  understanding  of  one's  readers.  I  may,  however,  be 
excused  for  saying,  that,  if  the  fact,  that  a  writer  is  nearly 
contemporary  with  the  events  which  he  professes  to  relate, 
be  sufficient  to  authenticate  his  narrative,  much  more  (as  is 
said  in  Euclid's  demonstrations)  must  be  the  fact  of  his 
being  a  contemporary  ;  whence  it  follows,  that  if  any  one  at 
the  present  day  should  give  an  account  of  the  British  war 
in  Afghanistan,  whatever  might  be  his  character  or  his 
means  of  information,  his  history  ought  to  be  received  as 
authentic. 

But  the  principles  which  Strauss  lays  down  to  guide  us 
in  judging  of  the  credibility  of  histories  have  particular 
reference  to  the  Gospels  ;  and  these  are  full  of  accounts  of 
miracles,  that  is,  according  to  him,  of  supposed  events 
which  are  impossible  in  the  nature  of  things.  It  appears, 
therefore,  that  impossible  events  become  credible,  if  related 
by  a  person  nearly  contemporary  with  their  occurrence  ;  or 
rather  we  must  say,  to  avoid  too  glaring  an  absurdity  of 
expression,  nearly  contemporary  with  the  time  of  their 
supjjosed  occurrence. 


Vol.  I.  p.  125.  I  have  quoted  on  this  page  the  note 
of  De  Wette  on  a  passage  of  Luke  to  which  he  refers  to 
prove  that  the  Gospel  of  Luke  was  not  written  till  after  the 
destruction  of  Jerusalem,  and  have  remarked  the  ambiguous 
use  in  it  of  the  wttrds  "lliose"  and  "these."     This  am- 


Ixxx  CORRECTIONS  AND  REMARKS. 

biguity  he  has  removed,  in  the  third  edition  of  his  Commen- 
tary, pubhshed  in  1846,  by  the  insertion  of  a  parenthesis,  so 
that  his  note  now  stands  thus  :  — 

"  That  Luke,  in  contradiction  to  Matthew,  assigns  an 
earlier  date  for  the  persecutions  of  the  Christians,  that  is, 
before  those  wars  and  tumults,  betrays  the  fact,  that,  at  the 
time  when  he  wrote,  those,  indeed  (namely,  the  persecu- 
tions related  in  the  seventh  and  eighth  chapters  of  the  Acts 
of  the  Apostles,  and,  perhaps,  the  persecution  of  Nero),  but 
not  these,  had  taken  place." 

This  insertion  does  not  alter  the  essential  character  of  his 
comment,  but  shows  that  it  had  passed  anew  under  his 
inspection.  If  the  fact  were  not  before  our  eyes,  it  might 
-seem  an  incredible  supposition,  that  a  writer  should  refer  to 
a  passage  in  Luke,  which  he  considers  as  carrying  with  it 
evidence  that  it  was  written  before  the  wars  and  tumults 
which  preceded  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  for  the  pur- 
pose of  proving  that  Luke's  Gospel  was  not  written  till 
after  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem. 


Vol.  I.  p.  83,  note,  line  L     For  ^tov'  read  '  Tfjv.'' 
Vol.  II.  p.  60,  note  t.     For  '  c.  7  '  read  '  c.  27.' 

p.  Ixxiii.,  line  17.     For  '  Agar'  read  '  Agur.' 


r.Nn  OF  vor..   iii. 


BS2555.4.N882V.3 

The  evidences  of  the  genuineness  of  the 

Princeton  Theological  Seminary-Speer  Library 


1    1012  00028  8490 


